ADVERTISEMENT

From every small, family owned gun dealer in America

SadButTrue said:
Joe what would you do to address the problem?
Click to expand...


That is an honest question that deserves an honest answer.

I don't know.

I truly don't know.


As I understand the second amendment, the forefathers wanted the citizenry to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government should the need arise, as they did. This was 240ish years ago when everyone had a single shot musket. Flash forward and one must see the advancement in technology. Do I think my neighbor down the street should have an Abrams tank and some ICBM's, of course not. The founding fathers could not have known how things would be in 250 years, and as smart as they were, could not be expected to.

Which brings us to today. What or who should decide the meaning of "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed "?

I am an avid outdoorsman and hunter, I have an AR-15, more accurately, I have more than one. I also have 30 round magazines. Do I need them? No I don't. But they sell them, so why shouldn't I? Do I need an $80,000 Chevy Duramax diesel pickup? No, but they sell them everyday. When we start letting someone else decide what we need and what we can own it is a slippery slope.

I personally do not think the average citizen should own military grade weapons. The day of fighting off the tyrannical government is long gone. We have the technology as a nation, to use a drone and kill me in my house, in bed, at 3:00 am on any Thursday they choose. I can't fight that.

But as a parent, should I accept the fact that they want to disarm me and my capability of protecting my wife and children? Just call the authorities and hope they show up in time? No thank you

I could go on and on, I have way more on the subject but won't bore you.

I do not know the answer. It is a very complicated situation, and way smarter than I cannot solve it. I hate to see this happen, but don't know how to stop it. I do know, however, taking a weapon away from the law abiding, while the criminal keeps theirs is not the answer. I also know Walmart discontinuing selling ammo is a marketing ploy which will change nothing, but I couldn't care less what they do.

It is a complex problem. I don't know the answer. I wish I did.

In closing, let me ask you this.

Do you trust the government, that takes part of your paycheck every week, and uses it to help finance the murder of it's most vulnerable citizens, to show up and protect you in the middle of the night from bad men that wish you harm?

I don't
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hb1025
Thanks 73 for your candid answer. I assure you it wasn't a bore. I don't think, think being the operative word, that anyone really wants to take away yours or my weapons. That will NEVER happen. I just don't see the need for military grade weapons or 30 round clips. The problem with all of this is it's really to late to do anything about that because the cat, so to speak, is already out of the bag. There is no answer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 73 winch
Moscow_Mitch said:
You simpleton. The militia was intended to overthrow the British government, not the U.S government.

The question is, why are you so immature that you won’t sacrifice ownership of your large magazines and AR15 for the greater good and safety of our children.

You know sure as shootin if a maniac scared or shot one of your family members you would change your tune but you are so bull headed you won’t admit you are wrong.

And then you use cars as example. Fine. Licensing. Registration. Testing. Taxes.
Click to expand...


1. You simpleton. The militia was intended to overthrow the British government, not the U.S. government.

Don't think so.


2.The question is, why are so immature that you won't sacrifice ownership of your large magazines and AR15 for the greater good and safety of our children.

The existence of my AR15's will increase the safety of our children, not reduce it.


3. You know sure as shootin if a maniac scared or shot one of your family members you would change your tune but you are so bull headed you won't admit you are wrong.

If this happened, it would only further galvanize my desire to have adequate protection's for myself and family. The thought that someone would want to disarm themselves because other's want to do them harm is ludicrous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: millerbleach and MIZZOU71
Moscow_Mitch said:
You simpleton. The militia was intended to overthrow the British government, not the U.S government.

The question is, why are you so immature that you won’t sacrifice ownership of your large magazines and AR15 for the greater good and safety of our children.

You know sure as shootin if a maniac scared or shot one of your family members you would change your tune but you are so bull headed you won’t admit you are wrong.

And then you use cars as example. Fine. Licensing. Registration. Testing. Taxes.
Click to expand...
Someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, an AR15 with 30 round magazines is my best friend.

If my wife and kids are being raped and murdered what right do you have to tell me I have to stop in the middle of the fight to reload ??

Look at the total number of homicides committed with firearms. Less than 5% are committed with any kind of rifle. If you want to stop gun deaths ban 38 revolvers
 
Moscow_Mitch said:
You simpleton. The militia was intended to overthrow the British government, not the U.S government.

The question is, why are you so immature that you won’t sacrifice ownership of your large magazines and AR15 for the greater good and safety of our children.

You know sure as shootin if a maniac scared or shot one of your family members you would change your tune but you are so bull headed you won’t admit you are wrong.

And then you use cars as example. Fine. Licensing. Registration. Testing. Taxes.
Click to expand...
Simpleton?
Do you really not understand the 2nd amendment was established because the colonists had come from a place where a heavy handed government was oppressing them and they had no way to resist because weaponry wasn't allowed? They wanted to insure that wasn't possible here. Simpleton?

What would "sacrificing" weapons do to make anyone safer? Do you think criminals couldn't get them? Simpleton?

Why would someone attacking a persons family make them want less defense? Simpleton?

Do you think we don't have gun registration and training now?

I think you need to examine who the simpleton is.
 
bueno_Tuco said:
Someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, an AR15 with 30 round magazines is my best friend.

If my wife and kids are being raped and murdered what right do you have to tell me I have to stop in the middle of the fight to reload ??

Look at the total number of homicides committed with firearms. Less than 5% are committed with any kind of rifle. If you want to stop gun deaths ban 38 revolvers
Click to expand...
EVERY cry from the leftists, every suggestion, every "solution" is a play on emotions. Deterrents come in the form of punishment for bad behavior not in trying to limit the opportunity to behave badly. Make SERIOUS punishment for bad behavior and much of this will end.
 
Moscow_Mitch said:
2A has NOTHING to do with tyranny by the US government. Try King George. Some NRA mouthpiece made that up and then you swallowed it like I imagine you do nightly.
Click to expand...
What threat did the British pose in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was ratified?
The last British troops were withdrawn in 1783! They wanted no more of us. The 2nd amendment was just like the others. They were put there to prevent what they had left.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 73 winch and millerbleach
Of the 36,383 Americans killed with guns each year, 22,274 are gun suicides (61%), 12,830 are gun homicides (35%), 496 are law enforcement shootings (1.4%), and 487 are unintentional shootings (1.3%).

Of the 12,830 gun homicides only 373 were the result of "mass shootings" (2%).

The other interesting fact was handguns were responsible for approximately 65% of homicides. Rifles or "assault rifles" were only used 4% of the time.

I don't know what the answer is, but those are some facts for anyone interested.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
 
Veerman_12 said:
Of the 36,383 Americans killed with guns each year, 22,274 are gun suicides (61%), 12,830 are gun homicides (35%), 496 are law enforcement shootings (1.4%), and 487 are unintentional shootings (1.3%).

Of the 12,830 gun homicides only 373 were the result of "mass shootings" (2%).

The other interesting fact was handguns were responsible for approximately 65% of homicides. Rifles or "assault rifles" were only used 4% of the time.

I don't know what the answer is, but those are some facts for anyone interested.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
Click to expand...
The facts aren't scary enough!
We're all gonna be dead in 10 years from climate change and they are worrying about a few shootings.
 
I'm not saying don't do anything. I am saying be reasonable. The overwhelming majority of gun owners will never commit a crime involving a gun.

Trying to outlaw guns because a small percentage of people (criminals) kill other people with them would be like outlawing cars because a minority of drivers drink and drive.

Having said that, both sides need to be reasonable. Does a civilian NEED a 30 round magazine?

Would a reasonable person object to raising the age to purchase a gun to 25? Or at least raising the age to buy a handgun? Ammo tracking is reasonable in my opinion.

I mean we track sudafed purchases because idiots make meth with it, we track opiate purchases because people OD or sell it. I don't find it entirely unreasonable to track the purchase of ammunition.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MIZZOU71
millerbleach said:
What threat did the British pose in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was ratified?
The last British troops were withdrawn in 1783! They wanted no more of us. The 2nd amendment was just like the others. They were put there to prevent what they had left.
Click to expand...
The burned our capitol down in the early 1800s
 
bueno_Tuco said:
I wonder when Wal Mart will stop selling alcohol so they won’t contribute to drunk driving,,,,,or tobacco products so they aren’t responsible for cancer.

Or backyard pools so they won’t contribute to child drownings(a much larger killer of children than guns)??
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised to see Walmart out of the tobacco business someday. It's almost certainly far more of a traffic driver for them than guns/ammo were, so it's a tougher call, but it's a product that has already been pulled in full or in part by retailers like CVS and Costco, and sales of tobacco products continue to decline on a unit basis in the US. There's some other considerations that may hurt over time (cigarettes aren't sold at their e-checkouts or online, and some states and localities in which they operate are likely to continue to make cigarettes harder to obtain via changes in tax and regulatory policy.)

When you consider they already didn't sell handguns and many other guns in nearly all of their stores...what % of their revenue do you think came from non-hunting related guns and ammo? Rounding error. it's also not the sort of product like cigs or beer that gets someone in the door 50-200 times a year.

Walmart's core concerns are for the moms who buy groceries there and for the safety of their employees. Is it factually true that cigarettes will kill more Walmart employees than guns this year? Yes. Does it create the same emotional response, though? No.
 
Veerman_12 said:
I'm not saying don't do anything. I am saying be reasonable. The overwhelming majority of gun owners will never commit a crime involving a gun.

Trying to outlaw guns because a small percentage of people (criminals) kill other people with them would be like outlawing cars because a minority of drivers drink and drive.

Having said that, both sides need to be reasonable. Does a civilian NEED a 30 round magazine?

Would a reasonable person object to raising the age to purchase a gun to 25? Or at least raising the age to buy a handgun? Ammo tracking is reasonable in my opinion.

I mean we track sudafed purchases because idiots make meth with it, we track opiate purchases because people OD or sell it. I don't find it entirely unreasonable to track the purchase of ammunition.
Click to expand...
Thanks for a very reasonable comment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Veerman_12
millerbleach said:
That wasn't an attempt to stop us from being a country......a threat. It was an act of agression but not an attempt to start a war with us.
Click to expand...
It literally started a war? The US and the UK were fierce enemies in the late 18th and early 19th Century.
 
Neutron Monster said:
It literally started a war? The US and the UK were fierce enemies in the late 18th and early 19th Century.
Click to expand...
Call it what you wish but the point remains that the 2nd amendment was put in place for the same reason as the others. All were to prevent what they left in Britain.
 
Veerman_12 said:
I'm not saying don't do anything. I am saying be reasonable. The overwhelming majority of gun owners will never commit a crime involving a gun.

Trying to outlaw guns because a small percentage of people (criminals) kill other people with them would be like outlawing cars because a minority of drivers drink and drive.

Having said that, both sides need to be reasonable. Does a civilian NEED a 30 round magazine?

Would a reasonable person object to raising the age to purchase a gun to 25? Or at least raising the age to buy a handgun? Ammo tracking is reasonable in my opinion.

I mean we track sudafed purchases because idiots make meth with it, we track opiate purchases because people OD or sell it. I don't find it entirely unreasonable to track the purchase of ammunition.
Click to expand...
Why is it that all states who have outlawed high capacity magazines allow off duty, as well as retired police officers to own 30 round magazines. Why does someone who was a cop 10 years ago need one but I don’t???
 
bueno_Tuco said:
Why is it that all states who have outlawed high capacity magazines allow off duty, as well as retired police officers to own 30 round magazines. Why does someone who was a cop 10 years ago need one but I don’t???
Click to expand...

They don't. That's an issue of fixing an existing problem.
 
Moscow_Mitch said:
Veerman, you seem somewhat reasonable. But let’s consider more than just the number of people killed. That isn’t how terrorism works. Why do you have to take off your shoes at the airport when the shoe bomber didn’t kill anyone?

It’s the threat of terrorism. It is 6 year old children getting traumatized having to do intruder drills. It is the fear, rational or not that many parents feel for their own children in 2019. It is people checking out the exits to a crowded night club or theater to have an escape plan. We should not have to live this way.

Look at the list of weapons used in the last 15 mass shootings. Why make it easy for angry men to kill? Let’s make it harder. We can do that AND go to work on the suicide problem and the inner city killings at the same time.
It’s not just death, it is also terror. No civilian needs those weapons nor large magazines.
Click to expand...

And that's not a reasonable position to take. Like I already stated, 99% of legal gun owners will never commit a crime with their weapon.

To use your analogy, taking away EVERYONE'S gun because a small minority might kill someone with it is like banning air travel because a few people might hijack a plane.

There are inherent risks in just being alive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MIZZOU71
Moscow_Mitch said:
Airplanes are not specifically made to kill large numbers of people rapidly. They are used to transport millions of people and do so safely because there are readily available methods to stop hijackers.

If we keep allowing companies to flood the market with Killing machines it is virtually impossible to keep them out of the hands of some undiagnosed mad man or an angry young fellow.

See the difference between planes and AR15s? One transports people the other is simply for rapidly killing them. You are wrong. Your post is really stupid.

Ban ASSAULT rifles. Ban large magazines.
Click to expand...

1. I have not and will not insult you.

2. I did not address the other portion of your previous post regarding "addressing suicide and gang violence".

In countries that have severely restricted the use of firearms, such as South Korea, Japan, Belgium, Lithuania, etc. the suicide rate is actually higher than in the United states. They just use different methods to kill themselves.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/suicide-rate-by-country/

Secondly, banning "assault rifles" would have very little bearing on the suicide rate because the majority of gun related suicides are committed with handguns.

3. As for gang violence, how many gang members buy their guns legally? I'm all ears if you have a solution that doesn't involve disarming the 99% of gun owners who will never commit a crime involving a gun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MIZZOU71
Moscow_Mitch said:
How anyone can read my post and not comprehend is wack. I made it clear. The problem is not the number of deaths. It is TERROR. Millions living in fear. Spending billions putting together armies of security guards. Building fortresses for new schools.
It’s not the death count. IT IS THE FEAR. Mom’s being scared to death to let Johnny go to a concert. Put yourself in other people’s shoes.
Click to expand...

Are you afraid everytime you drive? You're FAR more likely to die in an auto accident.

Is people drinking and driving or texting and driving an act of terror, because they kill WAY more people than "mass shooters".

Fear and terrorism is an excuse and not a good one, like I said previously, there is inherent risk to being alive. That's just reality.

Give me a good reason to disarm the population, the overwhelming majority of whom will never commit a crime with a gun.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MIZZOU71, millerbleach and 73 winch
Moscow_Mitch said:
Airplanes are not specifically made to kill large numbers of people rapidly. They are used to transport millions of people and do so safely because there are readily available methods to stop hijackers.

If we keep allowing companies to flood the market with Killing machines it is virtually impossible to keep them out of the hands of some undiagnosed mad man or an angry young fellow.

See the difference between planes and AR15s? One transports people the other is simply for rapidly killing them. You are wrong. Your post is really stupid.

Ban ASSAULT rifles. Ban large magazines.
Click to expand...
It’s not ever going to happen, it’s simply impossible. To Ban them you have to somehow identify who has millions of AR’s and AK’s and the millions more magazines. Then you have to have the political guts to send the police out to confiscate them all.

There was recently a FOI request in New Jersey by a gun rights group asking for the number of high capacity magazines that have been surrendered since they were made illegal a couple of years ago. The answer from the state was None, not a single magazine in the state had been turned in at the state level. They said they had no idea if any magazines had been turned in at the local level.

It’s completely impossible to enforce it’s just a feel good rallying cry from snowflakes
 
Veerman_12 said:
Are you afraid everytime you drive? You're FAR more likely to die in an auto accident.

Is people drinking and driving or texting and driving an act of terror, because they kill WAY more people than "mass shooters".

Fear and terrorism is an excuse and not a good one, like I said previously, there is inherent risk to being alive. That's just reality.

Give me a good reason to disarm the population, the overwhelming majority of whom will never commit a crime with a gun.
Click to expand...
Yep, it isn't that guns make us unsafe or more unsafe. If safe was the goal, there are far more unsafe things we use every day. Chainsaws are far more dangerous than guns but they aren't targeted by the left as needing to get out of everyones hands
 
Veerman_12 said:
Are you afraid everytime you drive? You're FAR more likely to die in an auto accident.

Is people drinking and driving or texting and driving an act of terror, because they kill WAY more people than "mass shooters".

Fear and terrorism is an excuse and not a good one, like I said previously, there is inherent risk to being alive. That's just reality.

Give me a good reason to disarm the population, the overwhelming majority of whom will never commit a crime with a gun.
Click to expand...
World Trade Towers were taken down with some plastic box knifes,,,,Oklahoma Federal building taken down with Fertilizer and diesel fuel,,,,,right around 4000 people killed by terrorist acts there.

Are we going to outlaw box cutters,, Fertilizer, and diesel fuel???

It’s the friggin society that has changed

I live a stones throw from the largest retailer of machine guns to civilians in the USA. 2-3 times a week there is machine gun fire coming from Midwest Tacticals shooting range. I have never been shot and the only thing that upsets me is they haven’t invited me up for a playday. The weapons aren’t the problem. There will always be some lunatic that figures out a way to kill 15-20 people.

To drop violent crime committed with a gun start throwing people convicted of a misdemeanor first offense in jail for 2-3 years and s feeling 20-30 years minimum.

Anyone commits any crime while possessing a firearm 40-50 years minimum

I have a feeling all crime would plummet
 
Last edited:
bueno_Tuco said:
Anyone commits any crime while possessing a firearm 40-50 years minimum
I have a feeling all crime would plummet
Click to expand...

They don't want crime to plummet anymore than the want the border secure. They convince the sheep it is a real issue but it's about confiscation. Crime plummeting wouldn't further that cause.
 
Moscow_Mitch said:
No. I don’t fear death in most driving situations because I know 99% of drivers have been tested, registered, licensed, and insured. See the difference? Let’s do that with those high powered weapons.
Click to expand...

Hey I'm on board, regular training is a great idea. In some states licensing and permits are required, I'm fine with that as well.

I do find it hypocritical that you equate gun owners to terrorism even though (over) 99% of legal gun owners will never commit a crime involving a gun, but driving doesn't scare you when between drunk driving (10,500 deaths) and texting and driving (1.6 million auto crashes each year, causing half a million injuries and 6,000 deaths annually) you're MUCH more likely to be injured or killed by bad drivers than in a "mass shooting" (373).
 
Moscow_Mitch said:
If more guns makes us safer, why isn’t the U.S the safest country on earth? Why is it the opposite when it comes to gun violence?
Click to expand...

You need to look at the rate of violent crime in countries that have banned guns or make it extremely hard to access guns, yes gun crime went down (because duh) but overall, violent crime didn't decrease.

London should be paradise, very few guns on the streets, they've had to outlaw knives now because they were leading the developed world in stabbings.
 
Moscow_Mitch said:
We have changed laws because of the fertilizers and box cutters haven’t we.
Why didn’t you fight those changes?

Because you numb nads are still fighting every proposal anyone makes to help your children stay safe. You are despicable.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You didn’t ban potasium nitrate it is available over the counter from multiple sources you can buy as much as you want.

The point is evil people will find ways to do evil things.

Punish the criminals and put family values and morals back into our society and things will get better
 
Veerman_12 said:
1. I have not and will not insult you.

2. I did not address the other portion of your previous post regarding "addressing suicide and gang violence".

In countries that have severely restricted the use of firearms, such as South Korea, Japan, Belgium, Lithuania, etc. the suicide rate is actually higher than in the United states. They just use different methods to kill themselves.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/suicide-rate-by-country/

Secondly, banning "assault rifles" would have very little bearing on the suicide rate because the majority of gun related suicides are committed with handguns.

3. As for gang violence, how many gang members buy their guns legally? I'm all ears if you have a solution that doesn't involve disarming the 99% of gun owners who will never commit a crime involving a gun.
Click to expand...
There's that silly argument about "disarming" the 99%. They will NOT be "disarmed" if large capacity magazines are banned or even if the AR-15 style rifles are banned. Just leave that idea out of the discussion.
 
3Rfan said:
There's that silly argument about "disarming" the 99%. They will NOT be "disarmed" if large capacity magazines are banned or even if the AR-15 style rifles are banned. Just leave that idea out of the discussion.
Click to expand...

Read the entire thread and make an informed post please. Don't cherry pick one statement and act like that's all I said.
 
Moscow_Mitch said:
No. I don’t fear death in most driving situations because I know 99% of drivers have been tested, registered, licensed, and insured. See the difference? Let’s do that with those high powered weapons.

No one said disarm the population.
They want to leave large magazines, deadly ammo and rifles that tear your organs to shreds in the hands of U.S. soldiers or highly trained responsible professionals, not civilians with AR boners. You chicken littles turn it into something it’s not.
Click to expand...

Not trying to be a smart alec MM, but if you knew anything about the weapons you are talking about, you would have more credibility.

The "assault" weapon you like to demonize is a really low-powered pip squeak. No one that has any knowledge of weapons would use this sorry excuse of a cartridge if they wanted to inflict harm on a target.

Do a little research on ballistic coefficient and sectional density, as well as velocity and bullet weight, and you will realize the AR (ArmaLite) rifle is just a semi-automatic .22 caliber that is pretty benign.

Not saying it won't cause a lot of carnage, because it will indeed, but it is not the end all killing machine that you try to make it. There are much more dangerous weapons available on the open market, and in my gun safe, for that matter.
 
Last edited:
Veerman_12 said:
Read the entire thread and make an informed post please. Don't cherry pick one statement and act like that's all I said.
Click to expand...
I don't care of that's all you said or not, all of you guys comeback to the same ole, same ole, they want to take away all of our guns, slippery slope crap.
 
Veerman_12 said:
Hey I'm on board, regular training is a great idea. In some states licensing and permits are required, I'm fine with that as well.

I do find it hypocritical that you equate gun owners to terrorism even though (over) 99% of legal gun owners will never commit a crime involving a gun, but driving doesn't scare you when between drunk driving (10,500 deaths) and texting and driving (1.6 million auto crashes each year, causing half a million injuries and 6,000 deaths annually) you're MUCH more likely to be injured or killed by bad drivers than in a "mass shooting" (373).
Click to expand...
I like and respect your posts, but wrecks by DWI or texting are accidents regardless of how stupid they are, but mass murdering is not an accident.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Veerman_12
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back