# Protect my gun rights.....!



## Hardtop

I have been blessed to have been born into a hunting,responsible gun owner family like most of you. For the first 35 yrs of my life, guns were tools we used to provide food for our families,target shoot, and in the worst case scenerio to protect the family.
But 20-25 yrs ago, things started to change, and have escalated to the mess we have now, where guns are now promoted as "weapons" to defend the owner from bad guys and political policy they might disagree with someday. And instead of the focus being on shooting animals for food, guns are being "promoted" by manufactures...the NRA, Uncle Ted, and many here as "weapons" to kill people.
If you value your right to own guns and pass that earlier mentioned family heritage on to your Grandkids, join me in doing all we can to stop thei moronis "arms race" and get rid of the guns that symbolize this People Killer image.........HT


----------



## bobk

Sounds like your rights are more important than mine or many other folks I know. Read the 2nd Amendment please.


----------



## ironman172

we'll need these for when the guberment is out of control(and it's close with all the new stupid reg's) ....the second amendment is nothing to do with hunting traditions, family heritage...it is in reality to keep the government in check....that we should never have to do anyway....but...??? 
....the constitution is what makes this country great!!!! we all should live by it ....or go somewhere else


----------



## Hardtop

Is that really why the majority of folks here own guns.......? to kill people.......! has happened to the idea of having guns for hunting......in this country.....?


----------



## ironman172

Hardtop said:


> Is that really why the majority of folks here own guns.......? to kill people.......! has happened to the idea of having guns for hunting......in this country.....?


you are saying that "to kill people" 

but it sure is a good deterrent......... I like them for personal protection myself hunting is just an added bonus...
I hope and PRAY I never have to use it for protection....but better to have it and NOT need it instead of need it and NOT have it....the guberment(at least the ones in there) wants nothing more then to drastically reduce what we can own....the leader has said on multiple occasions he doesn't think we need more then a single shot....maybe a double barrel

read the 2nd amendment ....nothing about hunting


----------



## bobk

There you go start cussing that will help your agenda. I should know better than respond to your silly posts. Bottom line is it's not about hunting. Most of us all hunt just look at the hunting forums. No one on here has said they want to kill people but YOU. I'm done trying to reason with you so I will stop replying to your nonsense.


----------



## Blue Pike

Sorry Hardtop but I cannot agree with that at all.

Kind of like the way this young lady puts it.


----------



## FISHIN216

#1. LIFE, #2 liberty, #3 pursuit of happiness

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## ironman172

ironman172 said:


> ....the constitution is what makes this country great!!!! we all should live by it ....or go somewhere else


so if you don't like it here(United States Of America) there are plenty of countries that might be more to your liking....







...









but for me the constitutions is the law of the land....that has been for a very loooooooooong time


----------



## IGbullshark

In before the lock!


----------



## Rivergetter

Can't stop people from drinking and driving. Drunks kill more people than AR style guns. So with that said hardtop I'll back your idea of gun control as soon as we all surrender our killer automobiles to the people who can keep my kids safe from the drunk and drug induced killers on the road. You make no sense.


----------



## lotaluck

Blue Pike said:


> Sorry Hardtop but I cannot agree with that at all.
> 
> Kind of like the way this young lady puts it.
> Gun Control - A victims perspective!!! - YouTube


That was powerful!! I will pass it on, thank you for sharing.


----------



## boatnut

Hardtop said:


> where guns are now promoted as "weapons" to defend the owner from bad guys and political policy they might disagree with someday.


HT,
Yes, I defend the right to keep guns to defend myself/family/friends from bad guys as well as "political policy". Sorry if you don't agree.

Please consider this:
The DHS began all this in April of this year, with the purchase of 450 million rounds of hollow point .40 caliber ammunition. This is significant for two reasons:
1) DHS does not fight wars with foreign nations. It's entire theater of operations is on U.S. soil, *dealing solely with the American people*.

2) Hollow point ammunition is banned by the Geneva convention and is not used by the U.S. military. This ammunition can only be used domestically, in the United States, *against U.S. targets or people*.

Along with these 450 million rounds of ammunition, DHS also purchased $400,000 worth of radiation protection pills and thousands of bullet-proof roadside checkpoint booths. 

in addition:
The U.S. government has also purchased all the following ammunition in addition to the 450 million rounds of .40 hollow point "anti-personnel" ammo:

Over one million rounds of hollow-point .223 rifle ammo
Over half a million rounds of non-hollow-point .223 rifle ammo
220,000 rounds of 12 gauge shotgun #7 ammo (target ammo)
Over 200,000 rounds of 12 gauge shotgun #00 buckshot ammo (tactical anti-personnel ammo)
66,000 rounds of 12 gauge shotgun slugs (tactical anti-personnel, anti-vehicle rounds)
Over two million rounds of hollow-point .357 Sig JPH (hollow-point) pistol ammo (anti-personnel)
Over four million rounds of .40 S&W JPH (hollow-point) pistol ammo (anti-personnel)
Over 60,000 rounds of .308 match grade anti-personnel sniper rounds (BTHP)
Plus, hundreds of thousands of additional rounds of .38 special, .45 auto, 9mm, 7.62x39 (AK rifle) ammo, and others.
DHS then buys another 750 million rounds of anti-personnel ammunition

A few months after buying the 450+ million rounds of ammo to be stockpiled in the United States, the DHS then went on to purchase another 750 million rounds of ammunition.
Additional contracts were added after that, bringing the grand total of government ammo purchases in 2012 to *1.6 billion rounds of ammunition*. That's over five bullets for every American man, woman and child. It also includes long-range sniper rounds.

By comparison, a citizen is considered to be a stockpiling "terrorist" prepper if they own just 1,000 rounds of ammo. The government, however, can purchase billions and the mainstream media doesn't even question it.

Just something for you to ponder.


----------



## Stars-n-Stripers

IGbullshark said:


> In before the lock!


LOL you're getting good at that!


----------



## Hardtop

While this is a subfourm about guns, the title at the top if the page is "Ohio Game Fishing" and "Hunting"......I hope we are all joined by the common thread of hunting and fishing here and the majority will agree that our guns are primarily for shooting animals not people. If that is not the case, perhaps the name of the site should be changed...?


----------



## IGbullshark

Stars-n-Stripers said:


> LOL you're getting good at that!


Its just about the only thing in good for around this forum haha


----------



## PapawSmith

Hardtop said:


> I have been blessed to have been born into a hunting,responsible gun owner family like most of you. For the first 35 yrs of my life, guns were tools we used to provide food for our families,target shoot, and in the worst case scenerio to protect the family.
> But 20-25 yrs ago, things started to change, and have escalated to the mess we have now, where guns are now promoted as "weapons" to defend the owner from bad guys and political policy they might disagree with someday. And instead of the focus being on shooting animals for food, guns are being "promoted" by manufactures...the NRA, Uncle Ted, and many here as "weapons" to kill people.
> If you value your right to own guns and pass that earlier mentioned family heritage on to your Grandkids, join me in doing all we can to stop thei moronis "arms race" and get rid of the guns that symbolize this People Killer image.........HT


There is a problem with your 'history of gun ownership' tutorial, because you seem to think history began at your birth. History, in our country, began with the folks that fought and died for your rights that you enjoy today, like the ability to own and hunt with a firearm. In its inception, that right had little or nothing to do with hunting but more to do with this countries needed ability to prevent the future development of a tyrannical government. It also served as individuals right to protect both family and property, as in those days laws were difficult to enforce and safety difficult to insure in the vast, less densely populated country. Over the centuries those were the main and intended purposes. Hunting has always been a known and understood right, also protected by the 2nd amendment, but never its designed purpose. 

Over the years laws and society have attempted to diminish the "need" for any type of firearm, with TOO MANY trying to establish the only possible "need" for them would be hunting. All the reasons of the founders, they say, are outdated and do not apply today. Wrong, they may in fact apply today more than ever. 

You have your history both distorted and backwards, Mr Hardtop, you think the gun ownership started for hunting and morphed into tools for "killing people". The history of the our rights to gun ownership began with protection of ourselves from our government and our lives and properties from others with hunting being an added bonus. It has morphed, in some folks eyes, into a right to own only a hunting rifle.

Please do not support the crowd that has, over the years, reduced this right to a 'hunting only' related right and will eventually try to remove this right all together.


----------



## ironman172

Hardtop said:


> While this is a subfourm about guns, the title at the top if the page is "Ohio Game Fishing" and "Hunting"......I hope we are all joined by the common thread of hunting and fishing here and the majority will agree that our guns are primarily for shooting animals not people. If that is not the case, perhaps the name of the site should be changed...?












In my 35 years of gun ownership.... I can say that I have never shot anyone....and hope I have another 35 years of the same(if I live that long.... be 91 then)....so why take what hasn't even done anything wrong....a gun is a tool just as a hammer is( that also can kill) it is the individual that determines how it is used 










why open another







....







...


----------



## Hook N Book

Keep on point and there will be no reason to take action with this one.
Soooo, lets see how good you fella's really are...!


----------



## KaGee

I asked nicely yesterday... It's almost Christmas. This topic has been beat more than the proverbial "Dead Horse" this week, with just about every thread being closed due to straying off the TOS path. I understand this is a passionate subject, but with recent events some cannot control their emotions.

Let's give it a rest until after the Holidays gentlemen... please.


----------



## deltaoscar

HT, some would say you don't even need a gun to hunt.

The Indians seemed to do okay with just traps, slings and arrows, right?

I admit I don't hunt but how many shots does one get at a deer/animal anyway? If you miss with the first one doesn't the deer/animal take off? So if you are just concerned with hunting, some would say you don't need anything more than a muzzle loader.

Please Hardtop, Protect everyone's gun rights.


----------



## PapawSmith

Hardtop, 
first let me restate, as I did in a previously deleted thread, (thanks Kagee you big bully! ) that while I adamantly disagree with you, I respect and appreciate your position on this issue, as we all are entitled to our opinions and I'm pleased you are willing to share yours amidst heavy opposition on this site. Your position regarding these firearms is much more prevalent in society today than most of the rest of us here would like to believe. I appreciate you are willing to debate this as we can all learn, grow in wisdom, and realize new truths thru constructive debate.

That said, listen here you moron...Hahaha, just kidding. You, and a couple others here, seem very affixed and opposed to the citizens right to own what you would describe as assault rifles. It is your opinion that we should only own guns deemed, by someone, necessary and practical for hunting. You and others, and myself and others, are in total opposition on this particular aspect of the gun rights issue as many of us have stated previously in a few threads. That, IMO, is a dead horse that we need to quit all beating each other over. I can not change your position and you not mine by us simply screaming loudest at each other. This is an extremely important issue that many of us would like to discuss, but we need to debate the substance as opposed to the emotion and establish why we stand were we do if we expect to effect a change or better understanding in one another. 

I would like to start with why I believe ownership of "assault style" rifles is and should be allowed for private citizens. The 2nd Amendment indicates that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It does not say 'the right of people to keeping guns deemed suitable for hunting.....' Very simple IMO. As said earlier, the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with hunting in its intent. 

The level of armament will always be a topic of debate but I believe that assault style guns for the public and even automatic weapons for those collectors able to obtain such a license are not excessive. Throughout our history the modernization of guns has always been driven by military needs. The American citizen's availability to these modernized arms has always followed. We went from flint lock to cap to single shot to repeater and on and on, and private citizens ability to procure these arms has been a constant. For those that are going to go there with the 'then you think we need RPG's crap, there has always been rational discernment of what is logical, in the 1800's citizens did not attempt to pull cannons behind their buggies.

I say that ownership of the assault style weapons available today are no more that a continuation of a pattern of citizens right to access to small arms compatible to the current military small arms. In fact I would say there is probably a greater disparity today in quality and function of arms available then ever in our history. Please remember, the number one intent on the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution was to insure a standing militia of FREE MEN, not conscripted or drafted, might have the means to stop a tyrannous government. 

I truly believe the original drafters of the Constitution would hold firm on this issue and would not expect we, as citizens of this country, should be relegated to bird guns and varmint rifles to stand if required against a government out of control. How would you respond to this and what do you hold most firmly as grounds for not owning these type arms?


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

Yeah except many of you folks are trying to categorize ARs as varmint rifles. Lol. If we need high capacity assault rifles to deal with a rodent or coyote population issue, we have bigger problems than a few school shootings.

That and the days of the populous being able to defend themselves vs a tyrannical government are long gone in the United States. That's not a very realistic scenario to me anymore. A. not enough people are armed, or don't have enough firepower to make a difference and haven't been in a long time. B. most people simply don't care(apathetic couch potatoes) or may even agree with the "tyranny" being bestowed upon them. The tyrant will have most likely been elected by democratic process. Majority rules in this country I'm afraid and we have to respect that regardless of whether we are part of that majority or not. We don't have to be happy about it, but you have to respect it.


----------



## Hardtop

Papawsmith, THANK YOU for the great explaination for your side of the debate, yours is the best I have seen and I am sure your words speak for many "gun owners"....."shooters"....and wanabe "militia groups", the NRA, and of course the gun manufactuers.
I realize that although "Ohio Game Fish" is suggestivly a web site for outdoorsmen, this sub site is -Guns & Ammo- so I am here as a guest and hope I can speak for at least some in the outdoorsman group who think it was wrong for the NRA and gun makers to shift the focus on guns from hunting tools to "weapons" to kill people over the last few decades.
I appreciate you attempt to back up the NRA with the discussion of the 2nd amendment and our need for military style weapons, to keep citizens on par with the military, but then you discredit that notion by correctly identifying the "rational discernment" that thankfully keeps my soldiers ahead of domestic terror groups.
I want my Army to win over splinter groups who don't like the decisions in Washtington, I don't want private militias to even think they might be able to overthrow this nasty Obama guy, or the next guy. I understand that when I carried an M-16 in the 70's and saw what they can do to human flesh & bones I was defending a country that makes policy change thru voting not riots and warfare. I want my Grandchildren to grow up in this country that settles differences with the ballot and debates like this rather than guns like other countries do, and some here suggest.
I hope there is still a majority of "outdoorsmen" in this country who remember when guns were not looked at as "weapons" but tools to feed our families and pleasure shoot....the last thought would be that we might ever need to aim them at another person. The "gun lobby" NRA, gun makers, shooting fanatics, have transformed the image of guns from respectable tools to weapons made to kill people. This frenzy has resulted in the "DOMESTIC ARMS RACE" you have all seen at the gun shops in recent months. A race to arm everyone against everyone else with guns that inflict " Extreme Predjudice" as we used to call it in the field. It should be no suprise that deranged folks follow thru with that marketing intention. We didn't have these kinds of massacre's when guns were designed & sold as hunting tools guys.
And in the aftermath of the worst domestic massacre one could imagine, with the spotlight on the one group who proposes to represent me as a gun owning outdoorsman......what does the NRA do, they throw another log on the arms race fire by suggesting that we bring even more guns into the equation, and put armed guards in every school....! 
I know my opinion is not shared by many on this "Gun" forum, I offer it in the hope that it might make some of you step back think of your Grandchildren, and ask youself if you might be a vicitm of this frenzy..... is this the world you want to live in, your kids to grow up in...... do you really want to see guards with machine guns like 3rd world countries we visit...... are'nt we better than that...?
Thanks again to the moderators for allowing an old guy to share his thoughts, HT


----------



## Snakecharmer

Hardtop said:


> Papawsmith, THANK YOU for the great explaination for your side of the debate, yours is the best I have seen and I am sure your words speak for many "gun owners"....."shooters"....and wanabe "militia groups", the NRA, and of course the gun manufactuers.
> I realize that although "Ohio Game Fish" is suggestivly a web site for outdoorsmen, this sub site is -Guns & Ammo- so I am here as a guest and hope I can speak for at least some in the outdoorsman group who think it was wrong for the NRA and gun makers to shift the focus on guns from hunting tools to "weapons" to kill people over the last few decades.
> I appreciate you attempt to back up the NRA with the discussion of the 2nd amendment and our need for military style weapons, to keep citizens on par with the military, but then you discredit that notion by correctly identifying the "rational discernment" that thankfully keeps my soldiers ahead of domestic terror groups.
> I want my Army to win over splinter groups who don't like the decisions in Washtington, I don't want private militias to even think they might be able to overthrow this nasty Obama guy, or the next guy. I understand that when I carried an M-16 in the 70's and saw what they can do to human flesh & bones I was defending a country that makes policy change thru voting not riots and warfare. I want my Grandchildren to grow up in this country that settles differences with the ballot and debates like this rather than guns like other countries do, and some here suggest.
> I hope there is still a majority of "outdoorsmen" in this country who remember when guns were not looked at as "weapons" but tools to feed our families and pleasure shoot....the last thought would be that we might ever need to aim them at another person. The "gun lobby" NRA, gun makers, shooting fanatics, have transformed the image of guns from respectable tools to weapons made to kill people. This frenzy has resulted in the "DOMESTIC ARMS RACE" you have all seen at the gun shops in recent months. A race to arm everyone against everyone else with guns that inflict " Extreme Predjudice" as we used to call it in the field. It should be no suprise that deranged folks follow thru with that marketing intention. We didn't have these kinds of massacre's when guns were designed & sold as hunting tools guys.
> And in the aftermath of the worst domestic massacre one could imagine, with the spotlight on the one group who proposes to represent me as a gun owning outdoorsman......what does the NRA do, they throw another log on the arms race fire by suggesting that we bring even more guns into the equation, and put armed guards in every school....!
> I know my opinion is not shared by many on this "Gun" forum, I offer it in the hope that it might make some of you step back think of your Grandchildren, and ask youself if you might be a vicitm of this frenzy..... is this the world you want to live in, your kids to grow up in...... do you really want to see guards with machine guns like 3rd world countries we visit...... are'nt we better than that...?
> Thanks again to the moderators for allowing an old guy to share his thoughts, HT


Some very good points IMO


----------



## Bad Bub

Hardtop said:


> First, let me appologize to all readers for the "wtf" comment earlier, that is not my style, I am a proud veteran, Husband,Grandfather, outdoorsman and I realize rude comments are counter productive. And a thank you to the moderators ( Kagee) for allowing us to further this important debate.
> Papawsmith, THANK YOU for the great explaination for your side of the debate, yours is the best I have seen and I am sure your words speak for many "gun owners"....."shooters"....and wanabe "militia groups", the NRA, and of course the gun manufactuers.
> I realize that although "Ohio Game Fish" is suggestivly a web site for outdoorsmen, this sub site is -Guns & Ammo- so I am here as a guest and hope I can speak for at least some in the outdoorsman group who think it was wrong for the NRA and gun makers to shift the focus on guns from hunting tools to "weapons" to kill people over the last few decades.
> I appreciate you attempt to back up the NRA with the discussion of the 2nd amendment and our need for military style weapons, to keep citizens on par with the military, but then you discredit that notion by correctly identifying the "rational discernment" that thankfully keeps my soldiers ahead of domestic terror groups.
> I want my Army to win over splinter groups who don't like the decisions in Washtington, I don't want private militias to even think they might be able to overthrow this nasty Obama guy, or the next guy. I understand that when I carried an M-16 in the 70's and saw what they can do to human flesh & bones I was defending a country that makes policy change thru voting not riots and warfare. I want my Grandchildren to grow up in this country that settles differences with the ballot and debates like this rather than guns like other countries do, and some here suggest.
> I hope there is still a majority of "outdoorsmen" in this country who remember when guns were not looked at as "weapons" but tools to feed our families and pleasure shoot....the last thought would be that we might ever need to aim them at another person. The "gun lobby" NRA, gun makers, shooting fanatics, have transformed the image of guns from respectable tools to weapons made to kill people. This frenzy has resulted in the "DOMESTIC ARMS RACE" you have all seen at the gun shops in recent months. A race to arm everyone against everyone else with guns that inflict " Extreme Predjudice" as we used to call it in the field. It should be no suprise that deranged folks follow thru with that marketing intention. We didn't have these kinds of massacre's when guns were designed & sold as hunting tools guys.
> And in the aftermath of the worst domestic massacre one could imagine, with the spotlight on the one group who proposes to represent me as a gun owning outdoorsman......what does the NRA do, they throw another log on the arms race fire by suggesting that we bring even more guns into the equation, and put armed guards in every school....!
> I know my opinion is not shared by many on this "Gun" forum, I offer it in the hope that it might make some of you step back think of your Grandchildren, and ask youself if you might be a vicitm of this frenzy..... is this the world you want to live in, your kids to grow up in...... do you really want to see guards with machine guns like 3rd world countries we visit...... are'nt we better than that...?
> Thanks again to the moderators for allowing an old guy to share his thoughts, HT


We didn't have a lot of the problems in the past that we have today. No major drug trades, crime was actually punished, people didn't "make a living" on the welfare program... that list could go on and on. The country and society has changed dramatically. Some of it for the better, some for the worse. Maybe we'll never be able to overthrow a tyrant government, but I'm sure as heck not going to give it away. And i'll be damned if some idiot from down the street is going to have free reign over my home and my family. 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## mattwill00

Hardtop said:


> Papawsmith, THANK YOU for the great explaination for your side of the debate, yours is the best I have seen and I am sure your words speak for many "gun owners"....."shooters"....and wanabe "militia groups", the NRA, and of course the gun manufactuers.
> I realize that although "Ohio Game Fish" is suggestivly a web site for outdoorsmen, this sub site is -Guns & Ammo- so I am here as a guest and hope I can speak for at least some in the outdoorsman group who think it was wrong for the NRA and gun makers to shift the focus on guns from hunting tools to "weapons" to kill people over the last few decades.
> I appreciate you attempt to back up the NRA with the discussion of the 2nd amendment and our need for military style weapons, to keep citizens on par with the military, but then you discredit that notion by correctly identifying the "rational discernment" that thankfully keeps my soldiers ahead of domestic terror groups.
> I want my Army to win over splinter groups who don't like the decisions in Washtington, I don't want private militias to even think they might be able to overthrow this nasty Obama guy, or the next guy. I understand that when I carried an M-16 in the 70's and saw what they can do to human flesh & bones I was defending a country that makes policy change thru voting not riots and warfare. I want my Grandchildren to grow up in this country that settles differences with the ballot and debates like this rather than guns like other countries do, and some here suggest.
> I hope there is still a majority of "outdoorsmen" in this country who remember when guns were not looked at as "weapons" but tools to feed our families and pleasure shoot....the last thought would be that we might ever need to aim them at another person. The "gun lobby" NRA, gun makers, shooting fanatics, have transformed the image of guns from respectable tools to weapons made to kill people. This frenzy has resulted in the "DOMESTIC ARMS RACE" you have all seen at the gun shops in recent months. A race to arm everyone against everyone else with guns that inflict " Extreme Predjudice" as we used to call it in the field. It should be no suprise that deranged folks follow thru with that marketing intention. We didn't have these kinds of massacre's when guns were designed & sold as hunting tools guys.
> And in the aftermath of the worst domestic massacre one could imagine, with the spotlight on the one group who proposes to represent me as a gun owning outdoorsman......what does the NRA do, they throw another log on the arms race fire by suggesting that we bring even more guns into the equation, and put armed guards in every school....!
> I know my opinion is not shared by many on this "Gun" forum, I offer it in the hope that it might make some of you step back think of your Grandchildren, and ask youself if you might be a vicitm of this frenzy..... is this the world you want to live in, your kids to grow up in...... do you really want to see guards with machine guns like 3rd world countries we visit...... are'nt we better than that...?
> Thanks again to the moderators for allowing an old guy to share his thoughts, HT


This is probably the most sensible things I've read on this site in awhile. These guns need to stop being marketing as 'assault weapons' if there is any hope of avoiding a AWB. 

I mean, ask yourself, do you really need a 30 round mag? I can not think of one situation that 10 rounds would not be enough. How many robbers are you defending yourself from? People like to use the 'snowball effect' as an argument, but that is just simply not true. Look at the previous AWB, did it spiral out of control to the point where we are all toting around single-shots? No, of course not.

I feel like a lot of this fear mongering is a blatant attempt by the NRA to rake in some more funding. Think about it, during the last two elections there were a ton of anti-obama articles written by the NRA saying that he was going to take ours guns and blah blah, and what happened? Nothing. He barely even touched on gun laws during his first election. But what did everyone do? Went out and blew a BUNCH of cash on ammo and guns. Where do you think this money then goes to?

And armed guards in schools/public? Seriously? Thats the solution? Everyone complains that they don't want the government taking away their freedoms etc., so the logical solution is to have security officers (hmm who would get that contract?) watching your every move? That sounds like a police state to me, anyone else?

There needs to be a logical, sensible middle ground. There's people that are always going to side with the NRA and no gun control, and there are people that are always going to side against it. The NRA had one chance to convince the people in the middle, the ones who are basically going to decide if there is a new AWB, and they failed. Miserably.

Everyone saying times have changed for an argument, guess when the constitution was written? How bad would it really be if you only could use a 10 rd mag? How about paying an extra $25-$30 for a background check? Obviously an AWB wont fix all of societies problems, there's also questions about how we treat our mentally ill, etc, but I for one wouldn't be opposed to a sensible gun policy, because the system we have right now is obviously not working.


----------



## Snakecharmer

mattwill00 said:


> This is probably the most sensible things I've read on this site in awhile. These guns need to stop being marketing as 'assault weapons' if there is any hope of avoiding a AWB.
> 
> I mean, ask yourself, do you really need a 30 round mag? I can not think of one situation that 10 rounds would not be enough. How many robbers are you defending yourself from? People like to use the 'snowball effect' as an argument, but that is just simply not true. Look at the previous AWB, did it spiral out of control to the point where we are all toting around single-shots? No, of course not.
> 
> I feel like a lot of this fear mongering is a blatant attempt by the NRA to rake in some more funding. Think about it, during the last two elections there were a ton of anti-obama articles written by the NRA saying that he was going to take ours guns and blah blah, and what happened? Nothing. He barely even touched on gun laws during his first election. But what did everyone do? Went out and blew a BUNCH of cash on ammo and guns. Where do you think this money then goes to?
> 
> And armed guards in schools/public? Seriously? Thats the solution? Everyone complains that they don't want the government taking away their freedoms etc., so the logical solution is to have security officers (hmm who would get that contract?) watching your every move? That sounds like a police state to me, anyone else?
> 
> There needs to be a logical, sensible middle ground. There's people that are always going to side with the NRA and no gun control, and there are people that are always going to side against it. The NRA had one chance to convince the people in the middle, the ones who are basically going to decide if there is a new AWB, and they failed. Miserably.
> 
> Everyone saying times have changed for an argument, guess when the constitution was written? How bad would it really be if you only could use a 10 rd mag? How about paying an extra $25-$30 for a background check? Obviously an AWB wont fix all of societies problems, there's also questions about how we treat our mentally ill, etc, but I for one wouldn't be opposed to a sensible gun policy, because the system we have right now is obviously not working.


And yours is one of the most sensible also -kudos....


----------



## Snakecharmer

Hardtop said:


> I realize that although "Ohio Game Fish" is suggestivly a web site for outdoorsmen, this sub site is -Guns & Ammo- so I am here as a guest and hope I can speak for at least some in the outdoorsman group who think it was wrong for the NRA and gun makers to shift the focus on guns from hunting tools to "weapons" to kill people over the last few decades.
> HT


Think about it......If there weren't assualt weapons to worry about, the NRA funding would dry up....They have to put the fear of outlawing guns in their members heads or they wouldn't have any funds. They need to keep the fear on the frontburner to keep the money rolling in.


----------



## ezbite

Hey Hardtop, protect your gun rights?? What about mine?? Why is your right to own your choice of gun more important than mine??


----------



## Bad Bub

ezbite said:


> Hey Hardtop, protect your gun rights?? What about mine?? Why is your right to own your choice of gun more important than mine??


Agreed.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

I really have to stop clicking on these threads.


----------



## Mr. A

I don't own anything even closely akin to an assault weapon, never have. I couldn't afford one with things as they are now anyway. When it comes to specific types of weapons I really don't have a dog in that fight.....

However, guns being marketed as "weapons" is largly due to gun manufacturers cashing in on societal fears, and the media ALWAYS using the term "weapon/assault weapon" to sensationalize their stories. (Half the time they can't even get them right anyway!) And, because the word "weapon" is legal police jargen.

I, like many others here and in societyn am very proud of my military service. When we joined we signed a proverbial check payable up to and including the price of our lives in defense of this country. Our constitution is the base of this country so I am, and will always be, against anything that erodes it in any way. I care 100% more about my constitutional rights being taken by the very thing the constitution was written to protect me from; the government.

So, in closing my point is simple. Without emotion and using reason, take an educated look at what is really happening. You can be against the "gun nuts" that want to own full autos but can you really be against those that are trying to protect the integrity of our constitution? I hope not.....

"Those that give up their rights to the government for safety end up with neither." Not sure who said it but it's a dang good point when you think about what we have lost already and before you give up anything else freely....



My wife says I have a fishing habbit....


----------



## Lundy

Hardtop,

I would like for you to save me a few thousand dollars please.

I am 57 years old. I grew up in a time when violence in society was not what it is today. The respect for individual rights and the life was different than felt my many today.

I am a hunter, most of my guns are designed as hunting weapons and I own some the best made. Many are single shot rifles, shotguns and muzzleloaders, perfect for the way I hunt but painfully slow to provide for a second round if required.

I am increasing my gun collection to include firearms that have better multiple shots capability.

Your post got me to thinking and I believe I have a solution that will satisfy many that want further gun restrictions and save me from spending a bunch of money that I really don't want to spend.

Could you see to it that the government passes legislation that prohibits anyone from ever wanting to do any kind of harm to my family or neighbors please. Once such a bill is passed and enacted into law we can all go back to sleeping with our doors unlocked like we did when I was growing up in the 50's and 60's.

The problem, of course, is that those laws have been in place seen the founding of our country. A law does not protect my family and more than a law protected those poor murdered children and teachers. Until such time that a law can provide protection for my family I am left to fend for myself against any and all threats, I have no choice


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

Well that sure seems a novel notion. I have no choice but to own an assault rifle to protect my family. We're really at that point? Wouldn't you rather have a nice reliable 9mm in the side table or something for home protection? Where are you planning on keeping these guns you say you need to protect your family?


----------



## mrtwister_jbo

this says alot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
twister


----------



## BigV

Lundy said:


> Hardtop,
> 
> I would like for you to save me a few thousand dollars please.
> 
> I am 57 years old. I grew up in a time when violence in society was not what it is today. The respect for individual rights and the life was different than felt my many today.
> 
> I am a hunter, most of my guns are designed as hunting weapons and I own some the best made. Many are single shot rifles, shotguns and muzzleloaders, perfect for the way I hunt but painfully slow to provide for a second round if required.
> 
> I am increasing my gun collection to include firearms that have better multiple shots capability.
> 
> Your post got me to thinking and I believe I have a solution that will satisfy many that want further gun restrictions and save me from spending a bunch of money that I really don't want to spend.
> 
> Could you see to it that the government passes legislation that prohibits anyone from ever wanting to do any kind of harm to my family or neighbors please. Once such a bill is passed and enacted into law we can all go back to sleeping with our doors unlocked like we did when I was growing up in the 50's and 60's.
> 
> The problem, of course, is that those laws have been in place seen the founding of our country. A law does not protect my family and more than a law protected those poor murdered children and teachers. Until such time that a law can provide protection for my family I am left to fend for myself against any and all threats, I have no choice


Lundy has hit the nail on the head!
It appalls me every time a tragedy occurs by someone using a gun, the first thing we need are more gun laws. With over 20,000 gun laws on the books, how many more do we really need? Will these new laws prevent another tragedy? How many of our current laws were broken by the deranged shooter in CT?

The United States Government spends BILLIONS of dollars (24.44 billion on the federal level alone in 2011) on the War on Drugs that has only resulted in an increase in the availability of drugs to our children, a significant increase in drug related violence and a severe reduction in our rights. Not to mention the number of deaths resulting in the use of these illegal drugs. Will MORE laws restricting the buying, selling and manufacturing of illegal drugs have any impact?

Criminals are criminals by definition. No law(s) will stop them.

We need to focus our attention on prevention, not passing more Laws that restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. After all, that is who are affected (law abiding citizens), not the criminals.


----------



## mattwill00

BigV... That's a completely different beast. I do agree that we should put more focus on prevention though, but you must also know that we supply legally bought assault weapons to cartels and make it very easy for them to carry out whatever acts they would like. Most are outfitted with ARs, AKs, etc. legally purchased in the USA, that is a fact

And does one really need a 30 rd mag to defend yourself in your house? If you are spraying that many bullets around don't you think that you might do more harm than good? If you can not (not implying this pertains to anyone in this thread) properly identify your target and place one or two reliable shots, should you even be using a gun at all?

Please tell me the negative side effects of having a mental health examination/thorough background check before being allowed to purchase such a weapon. I see none. Possibly supplying a list of names who might have access to said gun? Limiting mag size? That just means you have to reload at the ranges a few more times. If one of these factors saved YOUR child's life (not saying any of these would in the Sandy case), how would you feel?

And before everyone starts barking at me, I understand your point of view. I own guns, love hunting, love shooting, and agree that another ban will probably do very little in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. But it IS way to easy for someone with less than stellar mental health to acquire an assault weapon and use it how he/she sees fit, and something needs to be done IMO


----------



## Lundy

MassillonBuckeye said:


> Well that sure seems a novel notion. I have no choice but to own an assault rifle to protect my family. We're really at that point? Wouldn't you rather have a nice reliable 9mm in the side table or something for home protection? Where are you planning on keeping these guns you say you need to protect your family?


I don't need an "assault rifle" don't even know what those are. I just want a semi auto rifle with high capacity magazine. 

I already own semi auto hanguns that are kept in biometric gun safes. I would keep the magazines for any gun I purchase in the same safes, the rifle its self would be where ever I want to leave it.

Why is anyone concerned about what I would purchase or where I would store it? I will never murder anyone nor will my guns.


----------



## sam kegg

ban or no ban nothing will change for me! i will keep all my guns my ar-15 included regardless off what the politictions say! its my right and i will do as i see fit!


----------



## mattwill00

Lundy said:


> Why is anyone concerned about what I would purchase or where I would store it? I will never murder anyone nor will my guns.


No one is concerned about you, it's the people that DO want to murder and kill that have relatively easy access to high capacity, semi-automatic rifles that are capable of aiding in the massacre of 20 young child. And if it is possible to perhaps stop one of these massacres from occurring, is it worth your high-cap mag? 

Just offering a diff. view point.


----------



## sam kegg

i thought about that matt! but banning them would only take them outta the good guys hands! and make criminnals outt good people!


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

Lundy said:


> I don't need an "assault rifle" don't even know what those are.


And that's the end of that conversation.


----------



## Lundy

MassillonBuckeye said:


> And that's the end of that conversation.


Exactly my point!


----------



## mattwill00

Understood, and I respect the views of my fellow sportsmen. And mods, thank you for leaving this thread open I think discussions like this are good to have within this community especially because it affects us more than the average person.


----------



## Lundy

mattwill00 said:


> No one is concerned about you, it's the people that DO want to murder and kill that have relatively easy access to high capacity, semi-automatic rifles that are capable of aiding in the massacre of 20 young child. And if it is possible to perhaps stop one of these massacres from occurring, is it worth your high-cap mag?
> 
> Just offering a diff. view point.


I am open to almost anything that would stop the senseless murder of innocent people.

I wish someone had some ideas that would actually make a difference, I haven't heard any from *anybody on either side *of this debate. It's all just feel good measures that fixes nothing.


----------



## mattwill00

Lundy said:


> I am open to almost anything that would stop the senseless murder of innocent people.
> 
> I wish someone had some ideas that would actually make a difference, I haven't heard any from *anybody on either side *of this debate. It's all just feel good measures that fixes nothing.


In your opinion, would mental health checks and rigorous background checks be a step in the right direction?


----------



## Hook N Book

Lundy said:


> I am open to almost anything that would stop the senseless murder of innocent people.
> 
> I wish someone had some ideas that would actually make a difference, I haven't heard any from *anybody on either side *of this debate. It's all just feel good measures that fixes nothing.


Wow...why is this so obvious...actually, it's stunning...!


----------



## LilSiman/Medina

Hardtop said:


> I have been blessed to have been born into a hunting,responsible gun owner family like most of you. For the first 35 yrs of my life, guns were tools we used to provide food for our families,target shoot, and in the worst case scenerio to protect the family.
> But 20-25 yrs ago, things started to change, and have escalated to the mess we have now, where guns are now promoted as "weapons" to defend the owner from bad guys and political policy they might disagree with someday. And instead of the focus being on shooting animals for food, guns are being "promoted" by manufactures...the NRA, Uncle Ted, and many here as "weapons" to kill people.
> If you value your right to own guns and pass that earlier mentioned family heritage on to your Grandkids, join me in doing all we can to stop thei moronis "arms race" and get rid of the guns that symbolize this People Killer image.........HT


I agree? If i'm reading this right then he's right? Guns are meant for hunting and fun. NOT KILLING people. But now they are being advertised to 
"kill people". And that is sad. 

I think what he's trying to say is that the big guys (govt. ted and companies) are now advertising guns as ''people killers'', more and more every year instead of hunting weapons.


----------



## ezbite

http://www.predatormastersforums.com/forums/ubbthreads.php

AR's are used for more than "killing people"


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

Lundy said:


> Exactly my point!


What, that I'm not going to debate with someone who is being intentionally dishonest? Or you really want us to believe you don't know what an assault rifle is.

My point was if you felt owning a weapon was critical for the defense of your family, for it to actually protect you I would think it would have to be easily accessible in the event you'd have to use it. So that means you'd either want to have it on you, or within reach. It's not going to be able to do much protecting being locked up inside the gun cabinet.


----------



## Bassbme

I've been discussing this topic with people in chat rooms. It seems the people that want to ban the AR style rifle, don't understand the need for these kind of weapons for protection. A lot of them question the need for the high capacity magazines, stating what others in this thread have said. If you can't kill the person with 1 or 2 shots then you shouldn't be shooting. Luckily, I've never been a participant in protecting my house during a home invasion. But I can imagine it isn't a sniper situation. Even highly trained military personnel don't hit their intended target with one or two well aimed shots, when the action is fast and furious. Then you also have the possibility of only being able to get to your gun, and not all of its magazines, or ammo. Sure you may not need a 30 round magazine. But as someone else said. I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. 

It's not just the government we need to protect ourselves from either. There are riots in this country. Riots to the extent that the police wouldn't go into the area until it had a chance to calm down. What about a major natural disaster where society breaks down?

There are those that may think those examples are crazy, and aren't realistic, or that the police will be there to stop the craziness. Well........ the thought of someone going into an elementary school and shooting 1st graders is crazy.


----------



## wannabefishin

What really gets me about all of the "gun rights" activists is that you have no problem having a plug in your shotguns limiting your load to 3 shells to protect migratory birds but you all seem to have an issue with the limit of high capacity clips. If you are using AR or Mini14 for target shooting and "fun" then what's the big deal with replacing your clip a little more frequently. If you're really afraid that our government will come after us then you are living in an alternate reality. It will not happen in any of our lifetimes.
We need common sense laws not the wild west, where everyone was armed (and potentially dangerous). BTW, I am a gun owner, was raised around all sorts of fire arms and I believe in the 2nd amendment (as it was originally intended not what the NRA has turned it into).


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

Bassbme said:


> I've been discussing this topic with people in chat rooms. It seems the people that want to ban the AR style rifle, don't understand the need for these kind of weapons for protection. A lot of them question the need for the high capacity magazines, stating what others in this thread have said. If you can't kill the person with 1 or 2 shots then you shouldn't be shooting. Luckily, I've never been a participant in protecting my house during a home invasion. But I can imagine it isn't a sniper situation. Even highly trained military personnel don't hit their intended target with one or two well aimed shots, when the action is fast and furious. Then you also have the possibility of only being able to get to your gun, and not all of its magazines, or ammo. Sure you may not need a 30 round magazine. But as someone else said. I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
> 
> It's not just the government we need to protect ourselves from either. There are riots in this country. Riots to the extent that the police wouldn't go into the area until it had a chance to calm down. What about a major natural disaster where society breaks down?
> 
> There are those that may think those examples are crazy, and aren't realistic, or that the police will be there to stop the craziness. Well........ the thought of someone going into an elementary school and shooting 1st graders is crazy.


How many crimes were thwarted by firearms during the recent natural disaster Hurricane Sandy? Keep in mind this is Zoo York were talking here. The "concrete jungle". I'm sure things got pretty hairy.

When was the last major riot we've had? Considering thew laws were no different then, how did concealed carry and or automatic weapons involved?

I don't get the correlation at all. During a home invasion I think I'd want a pump shotty or some large caliber handgun.


----------



## ironman172

Lundy said:


> I am open to almost anything that would stop the senseless murder of innocent people.
> 
> I wish someone had some ideas that would actually make a difference, I haven't heard any from *anybody on either side *of this debate. It's all just feel good measures that fixes nothing.


If that principal was armed she would have had a chance or the vice principle....both were killed trying to hurl there body at the shooter....I think that is a game changing option.....the bureaucrats have put a big target on the school.....being gun free....at least they would have had a chance anyway


----------



## ironman172

MassillonBuckeye said:


> How many crimes were thwarted by firearms during the recent natural disaster Hurricane Sandy? Keep in mind this is Zoo York were talking here. The "concrete jungle". I'm sure things got pretty hairy.
> 
> When was the last major riot we've had? Considering thew laws were no different then, how did concealed carry and or automatic weapons involved?
> 
> I don't get the correlation at all. During a home invasion I think I'd want a pump shotty or some large caliber handgun.


talk about New York....what about the 9 people that the police shot(by accident...bad shots) with there full auto weapons(real assault ones) trying to hit the shooter.... that killed his former co worker a few years back...never heard much of it after words

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...ing-nypd-bullets-shot-all-nine_n_1830007.html


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

ironman172 said:


> If that principal was armed she would have had a chance or the vice principle....both were killed trying to hurl there body at the shooter....I think that is a game changing option.....the bureaucrats have put a big target on the school.....being gun free....at least they would have had a chance anyway


Maybe yes, maybe not. If you aren't a practiced shooter, heck even if you are it doesn't guarantee you are going to hit your target. Even if up close and with multiple rounds. Especially under the duress they would have to be under during a situation like that. I'm not necessarily opposed, but I don't think many in the education profession are ready for that level of responsibility. I'm sure many are considering the option at the moment though.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

ironman172 said:


> talk about New York....what about the 9 people that the police shot(by accident...bad shots) with there full auto weapons(real assault ones) trying to hit the shooter.... that killed his former boss a few years back....and I don't think they hit him either


Good lord! Hadn't heard anything about that, I'll have to try to look it up. Eeek!


----------



## boatnut

MassillonBuckeye said:


> I really have to stop clicking on these threads.


and stop responding


----------



## Mr. A

Could the principal have stopped the danger had she been armed? Who knows? No one knows for sure if they have the ability to assess the situation, make a determination of threat, and then competently use their firearm in the heat of the moment.

That being said, without that ability, she stood little chance.

A

My wife says I have a fishing habbit....


----------



## Bassbme

MassillonBuckeye said:


> How many crimes were thwarted by firearms during the recent natural disaster Hurricane Sandy? Keep in mind this is Zoo York were talking here. The "concrete jungle". I'm sure things got pretty hairy.
> 
> When was the last major riot we've had? Considering thew laws were no different then, how did concealed carry and or automatic weapons involved?
> 
> I don't get the correlation at all. During a home invasion I think I'd want a pump shotty or some large caliber handgun.


I don't know how many crimes were thwarted by firearms during Hurricane Sandy ..... do you? Can either of us prove that none were, or weren't? No. Just because it's not reported on the news, doesn't mean it didn't happen. But people, regular citizens, did stop crimes with the use of firearms in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, as well as during the aftermath of the 1989 San Fransisco earth quake. 

As far as major riots in this country. Do the Occupy Wall Street riots ring a bell? How about any of the number of riots after a cities sports team has either won or lost an important game. Or maybe the L.A. riots that resulted from the video taped beating of Rodney King? You may not see the correlation, but it is there. I'd also want the same things you mentioned during a home invasion, but that doesn't mean everyone does. 

As far as the poster that compared limited round capacities for hunting waterfowl. I've never heard of an armed group of Mallards trying to break into a house. Or a flock or Mallards coming down the street with burning houses and flipped over cars in their wake. It's clear to see that the 2nd Amendment can be, and is interpreted in many different ways. It was originally written because the US had no intentions of having a standing army. The founders wanted to be able to call up armed citizens with the ability to protect themselves from invading army's, as well as domestic threats.


----------



## Agitation Free

Blue Pike said:


> Sorry Hardtop but I cannot agree with that at all.
> 
> Kind of like the way this young lady puts it.
> Gun Control - A victims perspective!!! - YouTube


I've seen this video before several times. This young woman lost her parents before her eyes to a deranged s.o.b. and had the courage to stand before the senate and tell those liberal idiots the truth. Just wish she could have slapped that smug look off of Chuck Schumers face. If you don't agree with what she said, you don't belong in this country!


----------



## goolies

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## fishholio

just a little side note gun deaths will surpass traffic deaths in 2015 a little fyi


----------



## viper1

fishholio said:


> just a little side note gun deaths will surpass traffic deaths in 2015 a little fyi


Wow they taking away cars? As gun killings have been droping every year.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## KaGee

fishholio said:


> just a little side note gun deaths will surpass traffic deaths in 2015 a little fyi


I don't know your motivation here. Mind providing some documentation to this, or are you just trying to see who takes the bait?


----------



## ezbite

KaGee said:


> I don't know your motivation here. Mind providing some documentation to this, or are you just trying to see who takes the bait?


no silly, he can see the future


----------



## KaGee

ezbite said:


> no silly, he can see the future


So can I. Can you say, "delete"? 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## nforkoutfitters

fishholio said:


> just a little side note gun deaths will surpass traffic deaths in 2015 a little fyi


Lets just make stuff up and type it on the forum yea!!!!


----------



## viper1

I think hes talking out of the wrong side of his mouth to get some thing started. And Im sure he dont have proof because here is written proof that gun deaths keep dropping not going up. Really tired of people like that.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc.../crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls


----------



## 9Left

fishholio said:


> just a little side note gun deaths will surpass traffic deaths in 2015 a little fyi


how on earth did you come up with that????


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

Bloomberg news reported it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html


----------



## lotaluck

MassillonBuckeye said:


> Bloomberg news reported it.
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html


Please consider the source everyone, this guy the mayor of New York City is after everyone's guns and will use his money and news broadcast bloomberg.com to try and accomplish this.

Mr. Bloomberg brashly bounced back. He took his $10 million severance and immediately founded a financial information services firm that revolutionized Wall Street and transformed him into a billionaire. Bloomberg L.P. leased computer terminals  called Bloombergs  that provided vital analysis and soon became indispensable to professional investors. The privately held company later expanded into radio and television programming and a financial news service.


----------



## goolies

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## boatnut

Regarding Bloomberg keep in mind this is the guy that wanted to ban biggie size soft drinks in New York

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## MLAROSA

goolies said:


> It seems like a majority of people promoting an individual's rights to bear arms are doing so under the premise that we need to arm ourselves to protect family and property. Why have we decided to arm ourselves instead of pushing our legislators and law enforcement to do their jobs?


We have not decided to arm ourselves, we (as a nation) have always been armed. 

It is not legislators or law enforcements job to keep us safe. It is your own responsibility. I see this as the biggest single issue. Personal responsibility.

As a nation we used to be responsibile for our own food, shelter and security. Now, as a nation we depend on the government for food stamps, reduced housing and public safety. Until we, as a nation, go back to being responsibile for ourselves and stop being dependent on others we will continue to see tragedies.


----------



## goolies

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Lundy

goolies said:


> So am I understanding you correctly?.


No...........


----------



## MLAROSA

goolies said:


> So am I understanding you correctly? We should all carry weapons and do away with law enforcement and crime laws? Maybe just shoot it out like they did in the old wild west. It sure would save us a lot of money in taxes if we didn't pay for legislation and law enforcement.


Law enforcements main job is to take a report and catch a criminal after a crime has occurred. The entire "serve and protect" is a myth. The fact is law enforcement can not be everywhere all the time. 

If you want to be safe, it is up to you and you only.


----------



## goolies

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## MLAROSA

goolies said:


> I would just rather see much stiffer sentences for violent crimes than to feel the need to walk around with a gun.


What sentence can you give someone who shoots up a place then commits suicide?


----------



## fishholio

i used this new thing called the internet to come up with that kinda cool


----------



## goolies

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Agitation Free

goolies said:


> I can't even imagine what this young lady went through, or for that matter what anyone goes through when they lose someone close to them as a result of gun violence. I will say I don't agree with her (and others) interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
> 
> The authors of the constitution and bill of rights did not have a crystal ball. They had no idea that citizens of this country would need to bear arms to protect themselves from crimes perpetrated by other citizens of this country. Based on the times they lived in, it seems reasonable to believe that they were trying to protect our young nation from foreign threats as well as allowing the individual states to protect themselves from the federal government.
> 
> It seems like a majority of people promoting an individual's rights to bear arms are doing so under the premise that we need to arm ourselves to protect family and property. Why have we decided to arm ourselves instead of pushing our legislators and law enforcement to do their jobs?


The 2nd amendment is an individual right however that reguardless of which one chooses, he or she has the right to protection from a tyrant government or protection of life, liberty and freedom as the Constitution is read as a whole. Law enforcement officers can not protect each and everyone, 24 hours a day.


----------



## goolies

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## mattwill00

No one on the anti-gun reg side has answered any of my questions yet?

Do any of you really think having a mental health check/extensive background check would really be a bad thing? Won't help at all?

Do you really think we live in a country that is so out of order you need a high efficiency, high capacity 'assault weapon' to protect yourself? If you do, why are you still even here?

Do you think, with currently regulations, it is too easy for a criminal or a mentally ill person to walk into a gun show, FFL, etc and purchase one of these assault weapons?

Have you, or anyone you know/heard about, ever been in a situation, or can even think of a situation, where you would need a semi auto high cap weapon over a handgun and/or shotgun? I am sorry, but I've never heard of a group of 10 or 15 people every breaking into a house... but maybe I am wrong.

So really, what is the problem? I understand that no one wants to infringe on the constitution, etc, and we will never know whether it will stop a shooting or not, but I don't see how it wouldn't help.

The fact is the US is probably the most free nation in the first world when it comes to gun control. 15 of the last 25 mass shootings occurred in the US, next on the list is Finland with 2. I do not understand how this is not a problem to some people.

Our army is comprised of citizens who take an oath to defend this nation from all threat foreign AND domestic. I have confidence that if we even need to remove and overthrow a tyrannical government, our military will be the group that does it, not some rouge militia in Texas or something. In fact, I'm more afraid of some of those groups than average criminals.


----------



## MLAROSA

goolies said:


> So how does a person protect their life, liberty, and freedom if he/she can't afford to buy a gun?


This is just an excuse. If someone wanted a firearm, they could get one. There are many cheap firearms available. They may have to make sacrafices in order to purchase and maintain their firearm and skills, but that is part of ownership of anything.



goolies said:


> What if a person has a gun, but someone else has a better gun, or is better at using it? What if a person just doesn't have the mental or physical capacity to learn to use a gun?


I don't know to many people who have been in gun fights, but I do know a few, and I have never heard them say they wish they had a smaller weapon. 

The point is, you have every right to have the absolute best firearm, it is up to you to obtain and train with it.



goolies said:


> I agree that every US citizen under the constitution is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I also believe it is our government's duty to serve us by protecting these rights and they are not doing that if we feel we need to walk around with a gun for protection.


This is where we will likely disagree forever. It is not the governments duty to protect you, and I'm not just saying that - there is zero case law that proves your point. There is plenty of officer testimony that states they have no duty what so ever to "serve and protect" you. It simply is not their job. I mean that with all due respect to our officers.

A police officers job is reactive. They come after a crime has (sometimes during) been committed.


----------



## MLAROSA

mattwill00 said:


> No one on the anti-gun reg side has answered any of my questions yet?
> 
> Do any of you really think having a mental health check/extensive background check would really be a bad thing? Won't help at all?


Do we need to do driving checks on people when we sell automobiles too?



mattwill00 said:


> Do you really think we live in a country that is so out of order you need a high efficiency, high capacity 'assault weapon' to protect yourself? If you do, why are you still even here?


The .223 caliber rifle is one of the most popular hunting cartridges. Believe it or not, the AR 15 is used by many as a medium game hunting weapon in much of the country.

To get to the root of your question, the United States Constitution gurantees the American people the ability to counter a tyrant government. In other words, if the military has it, the Constitution says the people can have it as well.

The Constitution is why I am still here. I have been fortunate enough to travel some and have come to appreciate the freedoms we enjoy because of our founders were so generous to the people. I have not been to a better place on Earth, than here, in America.



mattwill00 said:


> Do you think, with currently regulations, it is too easy for a criminal or a mentally ill person to walk into a gun show, FFL, etc and purchase one of these assault weapons?


In the event you don't know, what makes a weapon an assault weapon is purely cosmetic and has absolutely no bearing on the fire rate of said weapon. 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yATeti5GmI8 



mattwill00 said:


> Have you, or anyone you know/heard about, ever been in a situation, or can even think of a situation, where you would need a semi auto high cap weapon over a handgun and/or shotgun? I am sorry, but I've never heard of a group of 10 or 15 people every breaking into a house... but maybe I am wrong.


Until you realize that alot of the "assault weapons" are actually used in hunting / plinking and not defence, I don't expect you to understand.



mattwill00 said:


> So really, what is the problem? I understand that no one wants to infringe on the constitution, etc, and we will never know whether it will stop a shooting or not, but I don't see how it would help.
> 
> The fact is the US is probably the most free nation in the first world when it comes to gun control. 15 of the last 25 mass shootings occurred in the US, next on the list is Finland with 2. I do not understand how this is not a problem to some people.


The problem is that as an American citizen you have the right to own firearms. There is nothing saying that you HAVE to own one, it is simply your right to do or not to do so. The problem is those who do not own a firearm are attempting to take away from those who do. The blame is being put on the tool and not the operator.



mattwill00 said:


> Our army is comprised of citizens who take an oath to defend this nation from all threat foreign AND domestic. I have confidence that if we even need to remove and overthrow a tyrannical government, our military will be the group that does it, not some rouge militia in Texas or something. In fact, I'm more afraid of some of those groups than average criminals.


Sadly, some military was used to confiscate firearms during katrina. A couple years ago I even had one military member tell me on this very forum that if ordered to he would disarm the American public. No doubt some in the military would defy the orders but many would obey them with out hesitation.

An interesting theory on why the American military is the best in the world goes back to our freedom and ammount of firearms in the civilian population. The theory is that by the time a young man or woman has reached the age to serve his or her country they are already familar with firearms and profecient shots.


----------



## goolies

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## MLAROSA

goolies said:


> I appreciate your point of view, but we will definitely disagree on this point. The government's sole purpose in a democracy is to serve it's citizens. I don't need case law to tell me that. That is why we have elections.


I am trying to understand your point here, but I can not. Could you clarify for me?

Are you saying we should elect police officers?



goolies said:


> Do you think law enforcement is only reactive because of the lack of resources? Proactive approaches to solve any problem only happen if resources are available beyond what is required to be reactive. I do not expect them to guard my home or family, but I do expect more than what I am seeing now. Everyone should...


What you are calling for is half of the population to babby sit the other half? How else could the police department protect everyone?

There is an old saying in the gun community, I carry a firearm because an officer is to heavy".

I am really not sure why you think you have a right to public protection. There is nothing in the US or Ohio Constitution that gurantees this. There is no case law that says this. There is no officers who would ever testify that they are obligated to protect you. There is nothing that says what you claim.

Can you explain why you feel the city or state is obligated to protect you?


----------



## BigV

> Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."
> "It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts


----------



## goolies

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## ezbite

goolies said:


> I know law enforcement can't be everywhere all the time and I also question the law enforcement motto of "protect and serve".


"protect and serve" used to be painted on all the police cars here in town, a few years ago when they got new police cars... it wasnt painted on them any longer, do you wonder why, do you know why? ill tell you why, because police are not our protecters.. protect youself and dont depent on anyone else to do it, to do so is foolish..


----------



## MLAROSA

goolies said:


> Are you saying that for a person to feel safe in this country they need to carry a weapon to protect themselves? Maybe this is a pie in the sky concept,


I'm saying go do what you feel is adequate safety measures for you and stop worrying about what the rest of the world does that makes them feel safe.



goolies said:


> but I'm saying we should demand for our legislators to pass meaningful crime laws with stiffer sentencing guidelines, for law enforcement to enforce the laws, and for the justice system to put criminals behind bars. I'm not asking to be babysat.


You are right, you are not asking to be babysat, you are asking that the rest of the population be babbysat. Just give it up, it will never happen. Every police officer will tell you it is not their job to protect you. They simply can not be expected to be every place all the time. What you are proposing is never - ever going to happen. It is not possible.



goolies said:


> Some people may feel less of a need to carry a gun with fewer criminals on the streets.


I doubt it.

There are a host of reasons to carry a firearm other than criminals. Many people do it for protection from wildlife while camping/hiking/hunting for example. Many do it for tradition. Many do it simply because they can.



goolies said:


> Or I guess grandma can continue to carry her 45 to the grocery store. She's getting old though so she might need to downsize to a 9mm. She is not as quick on the draw as she use to be. Hey what the hell, survival of the fittest right?


And here I thought we was having a civil discussion. What was I thinking


----------



## Agitation Free

Police do serve and protect, however they do it as respondents. Not as a first line of defense. Any other expectation is unreasonable. As an individual, it is your responsibility to defend yourself and your family. We as individuals are responsible to protect ourselves. goolies. Have you ever stood up for yourself? Sound like you haven't and you don't want to.


----------



## viper1

Well I would be ashamed if i couldn't protect my self or my family. It no ones responsibility to protect another. This is the wimps that make up our society and their entitled attitudes Im sick of. Reminds me of little kids in school who would taunt people and then cry when they got hit. A gun ,a knife or even a club. Makes no difference to me. I will protect me and mine. Only takes one bullet well placed to drop some one. So weather its a machine gun or a single shot really makes little difference. It takes me a couple seconds for me to respond and the police average 15 or more most times. That's why their are more investigations then murders caught. I will not wait like it seems some of these guys are. Name for that but i'll pass on saying it. The anti gun laws are a waste and a right their trying to take. If you have no stomach to take care of your own, or are to lazy to get training and become qualified that's fine with me. But leave my rights alone. You have your right to not participate. That's as far as it goes. And until i shoot at you them what I do is none of your business. And if you have to let me and let your family get killed its all on you. And if i have to fight some one Id sure rather it be some on like you who dont believe in fighting. A man might shoot me!


----------



## ezbite

Agitation Free said:


> Police do serve and protect, however they do it as respondents. Any other expectation is unreasonable. As an individual, it is your responsibility to defend yourself and your family. We as individuals are responsible to protect ourselves. goonie. Have you ever stood up for yourself? Sound like you haven't and you don't want to.


once again the internet has not expressed my thoughts correctly. police DO serve and protect. BUT what i ment was they cant be there all the time, everytime, on time..


----------



## viper1

Also the best way to prevent killing is to enforce the laws is quit giving life sentences. And more executions. That gets more attention and stops more crime then any thing. But its the soft hearted wimps that say they might not of done it. Start reacting to reason not what scares you so bad your afraid of making a mistake. Guns,knife and clubs dont kill. But people sure do. And im sick of seeing the nut jobs who get turned loose or a slap on the hands doing these things. I must be physic as no one else seems to see it.


----------



## MLAROSA

viper1 said:


> I must be physic as no one else seems to see it.


Thanks, I needed that. LoL


----------



## Agitation Free

We're good ezbite. My post was never intended to be directed at you. I was making the statement in general.


----------



## goolies

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## MLAROSA

goolies said:


> I don't want your gun. The supreme court has ruled in favor of an individuals right to bear arms. I respect their rulings. I'm just trying to learn why the increase in gun ownership.


Then why can you not respect the supreme courts decision that it is not a police officers job to protect you? You respect some decisions and not others?



goolies said:


> Is it protection from wildlife? Because they can? Or is it because our society has degraded to a point where they no longer feel safe? I suspect the primary reason is the latter. I thought about purchasing a handgun and getting a ccw permit because I didn't want my activities limited due to fear. That is not a thought I would have had 30 years ago.


Some people buy them for protection from criminals or wildlife. Some people buy them as an investment. Some people buy them just to have. Some people collect them like baseball cards. It really doesn't matter why people purchase a firearm. It really isn't your buisness. It isn't mine either.



goolies said:


> I'm sorry if you thought my point about grandma was not civil. That was not my intent. The intent was to pose the question if a person is to weak to protect themselves do we as a society have an obligation to protect them? I believe you already answered that question.


Perhaps I took the tone of your previous post about grandma the wrong way, but it seemed awful sarcastic. 

To your question, no there is no _legal obligation_ to protect the elderly from criminals. Is there a _moral obligation_ for all of us to watch out for those who are unable to do so? Absolutely.


----------



## goolies

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## buckeye dan

Has anyone else given any consideration to the folks who have spent several thousand dollars on these types of firearms who are not willing to have them tossed into a smelting furnace?

By owning these guns, myself and others cannot gift them to anyone, we cannot sell them to anyone and upon death we cannot will them to anyone. It will become the duty and responsibility of the owners or surviving family members to participate in volunteer confiscation so they can be destroyed or become criminals for trying to hide them for the next generation.

My son is old enough to take possession of the long guns now. If others do the same, we are looking at another 50-60 years before destruction on these arms ever begins. Assuming everyone who is 18 now reaches 68-78 years of age.

That means that most of us will not be alive to experience society without these guns. Based on the direction society is going in I would venture a guess that it will be time to limit more gun rights just about the time the most effective guns are reaching the furnaces in mass. Or when the path of most resistance is gone.

Show me any nation that has not continued it's path towards firearms elimination once it began. It usually happens when the people are convinced that they aren't responsible enough to defend themselves, defending themselves is a danger to the public and when everyone is convinced the right to own arms is only about hunting.

The gun grabbers aren't doing anything for our safety today. They are thinking a 100 years or more ahead when they can finally be rid of these dangerous weapons once and for all. History is very clear here.


----------



## ezbite

buckeye dan said:


> Has anyone else given any consideration to the folks who have spent several thousand dollars on these types of firearms who are not willing to have them tossed into a smelting furnace?


no sweat, they'll give you a $50 gift card for walmart.lol.


----------



## goolies

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## geoffoquinn

Hardtop said:


> I have been blessed to have been born into a hunting,responsible gun owner family like most of you. For the first 35 yrs of my life, guns were tools we used to provide food for our families,target shoot, and in the worst case scenerio to protect the family.
> But 20-25 yrs ago, things started to change, and have escalated to the mess we have now, where guns are now promoted as "weapons" to defend the owner from bad guys and political policy they might disagree with someday. And instead of the focus being on shooting animals for food, guns are being "promoted" by manufactures...the NRA, Uncle Ted, and many here as "weapons" to kill people.
> If you value your right to own guns and pass that earlier mentioned family heritage on to your Grandkids, join me in doing all we can to stop thei moronis "arms race" and get rid of the guns that symbolize this People Killer image.........HT


I agree. It's not like we are going to overthrow our government with weapons any way. The only way we can protest is to stop the economy not shoot the ones that make the rules we put in place. The armed forces we have will put an end to a violent uprising in a heart beat. We should have some sort of limit on what people can get a hold of. Guns that can wipe out a hundred people with armor piercing ammunition should not be sold on the open market without some sort of psychological evaluation process and responsible ownership vow at the least (i.e. proof of proper storage so it's impossible to fall into the wrong hands. I'm tired of waking up every morning and reading the news about multiple shooting stories.


----------



## MLAROSA

goolies said:


> I was unaware of the supreme court ruling regarding police officers until you made me aware of it. Thank you. I guess I'm among the people who were duped by the whole protect and serve thing.


The link BigV posted on the previous page has some good information. You can also find more information with a simple google search.

Case law is as good, better in fact, than anything the legislators put out. So we should care about it on the local, state and federal levels.



goolies said:


> It only matters to me why people are purchasing firearms, because like I said I considered it myself, and I know why I was considering a purchase. I was curious if other people were purchasing for the same reason.


And this is fine. Wanting to talk to others about firearm ownership is great. Perhaps I misunderstood why you wanted to know. To often it is a case of someone wanting to keep a list of who owns firearms or people just being nosey.

To me firearm ownership is a very private thing. It is almost like asking about my salary or how much my home cost. It is noones business. Certainly there are times when I make it the business of others, particularly people who want to learn to shoot and to handle a firearm properly.

To get to your question, yes many people are purchasing firearms for protection. The number of people who are recieving a concealed handgun license is increasing every year. You are not alone in your thoughts and feelings. 



goolies said:


> You are also right that I was confusing legal obligations with moral obligations. It's amazing how those two don't seem to work together in this country.


In the end it is up to us, as individuals, to provide our own security. I hope that you see this now. I believe we have a moral obligation to protect each other, however that will never be law.



goolies said:


> I appreciate you keeping the discussion civil. Using decisive language, like some others may on this topic, tends to close down any meaningful discussion.


I enjoy a good discussion. I hope some thought was provoked, that is what it's all about.

It appears you are starting to understand what many of us have been saying. I'm glad to see you come around.


----------



## mattwill00

MLAROSA said:


> Do we need to do driving checks on people when we sell automobiles too?


We do, its called a license.

I don't understand this. What if one tragedy could be prevented by doing this? I own guns, I love shooting and hunting, and I will continue to purchase them. But, damn, make it a little harder for people with poor intentions to acquire them.

And if you noticed, I put 'assault weapon' in quotations because I do not agree with the term either. But when every single gun magazine in this country paints that picture through advertising and such, what do you think the general reaction is going to be when someone uses one to murder 20 kids? When these things are marketed the way that they are is this really a surprise?



MLAROSA said:


> The .223 caliber rifle is one of the most popular hunting cartridges. Believe it or not, the AR 15 is used by many as a medium game hunting weapon in much of the country.


Okay, so answer me this. When, while hunting, have you EVER needed a suppressor, collapsable stock, and 30 rd magazine?



MLAROSA said:


> In other words, if the military has it, the Constitution says the people can have it as well.


Ask people in mexico how having people and the military equally armed is going. 60,000 DEAD in 6 years. And the military can do NOTHING. 



MLAROSA said:


> The blame is being put on the tool and not the operator.


So why not make it more difficult for the operator with poor intentions acquire said tool. Mental health exams, extensive background checks. Is that seriously that much to ask? Or should we let this continue? Like I said... 15 of the last 25 mass shootings have been in the US. Can we atleast agree that there is something wrong with this?


----------



## viper1

The assault rifles there after a lot are copys and some even in 22 caliber.suppressor, collapsible stock, and 30 rd magazine are used in tournament shoots. Illegal to hunt with. And those sports men are entitled to their guns as much as you are in your hunting guns. Mexico is also one of the countrys having the most gun control laws there is. And its the drug cartels and corrupt law killing citizens who are un armed. More proof guns are needed.




mattwill00 said:


> We do, its called a license.
> 
> I don't understand this. What if one tragedy could be prevented by doing this? I own guns, I love shooting and hunting, and I will continue to purchase them. But, damn, make it a little harder for people with poor intentions to acquire them.
> 
> And if you noticed, I put 'assault weapon' in quotations because I do not agree with the term either. But when every single gun magazine in this country paints that picture through advertising and such, what do you think the general reaction is going to be when someone uses one to murder 20 kids? When these things are marketed the way that they are is this really a surprise?
> I do agree with better testing and back ground checks. I think people need them before marring to prevent all the children raised as they are. Also the drivers who speed and risk lives every day! Also check your mentality to be able to qualify for a job. If your not smart enough you should have a minimum wage so your wrong decisions don't mess up the bright peoples lives. Also I think only people with a b+ or higher average should be allowed college and back ground test to prevent bad people from getting jobs. Also if your dieing from a bad disease maybe a back ground check to see what type person you are. And if you done any thing to help others out or got in tiffs with the law. No use in saving the worthless ones either. Oh I could go on and on.
> And its as stupid as the anti gun complaints!
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so answer me this. When, while hunting, have you EVER needed a suppressor, collapsable stock, and 30 rd magazine?
> 
> 
> 
> Ask people in mexico how having people and the military equally armed is going. 60,000 DEAD in 6 years. And the military can do NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> So why not make it more difficult for the operator with poor intentions acquire said tool. Mental health exams, extensive background checks. Is that seriously that much to ask? Or should we let this continue? Like I said... 15 of the last 25 mass shootings have been in the US. Can we atleast agree that there is something wrong with this?


----------



## Bassbme

Is it possible that the Mexican military can't do anything about it, because some high ranking officers are on the take? Or are being intimidated into not doing anything? Pablo Escobar had many high ranking military and politicians on his pay roll. 

One poster asked why the rush to buy guns by so many people. Protection is one reason... getting one before the government takes away your right to buy one is another. That's where they're headed...... that's what they want.


----------



## boatnut

Mattwill,
you mentioned potential gun owners should pass a mental health exam. How do you propose to do this? It seems most psychiatric evaluations are subjective at best. Perhaps the potential owner should be required to pee in a cup to see if there is any evidence of their use of psychotropic drugs? Do you really think that making potential gun owners take extensive "training" and safety courses will have any effect at all on some nut job that want's to kill someone else?

Let's face it, the responsible gun owners are not the ones that are the problem. It's the nut jobs and criminals that obtain weapons illegally for the most part that are the problem.

People like to tout that the US has such a high number of deaths by guns. Look at the number of deaths by medical malpractice....it's almost 20 times higher! Should we ban doctors and hospitals? 
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php


----------



## MLAROSA

mattwill00 said:


> We do, its called a license.


You do not need a license to own a vehicle.



mattwill00 said:


> I don't understand this. What if one tragedy could be prevented by doing this? I own guns, I love shooting and hunting, and I will continue to purchase them. But, damn, make it a little harder for people with poor intentions to acquire them.


What if the delay in purchasing (all the tests you propose) causes one woman to be murdered by her stalker? Is the trade off worth it?



mattwill00 said:


> Okay, so answer me this. When, while hunting, have you EVER needed a suppressor, collapsable stock, and 30 rd magazine?


No, but these things sure are fun at the range. Can you tell me how any of these things alone have killed anyone?



mattwill00 said:


> Ask people in mexico how having people and the military equally armed is going. 60,000 DEAD in 6 years. And the military can do NOTHING.


Mexico is full of corruption. If you want to start another topic on the drug war, go ahead, I will participate.



mattwill00 said:


> So why not make it more difficult for the operator with poor intentions acquire said tool. Mental health exams, extensive background checks. Is that seriously that much to ask? Or should we let this continue? Like I said... 15 of the last 25 mass shootings have been in the US. Can we atleast agree that there is something wrong with this?


Because making it harder on law abiding citizens do nothing to deter criminals. Are you saying that if the mother of Adam Lanza had to pass a psych test her son would not have shot her in the face and then shot up a school? Are you saying the gunman in Portland would not have stole the firearm he used in the mall shooting if the owner of the firearm had to pass a psych test?

Look, after this tragedies we all get emotional and want to ban everything. I get it. If there was no guns, no shootings would happen. That is fantasy land. There will always be guns in the real world. The best we can do is to limit violence by being responsibile citizens. By taking our safety in our own hands and not depending on others to protect us.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

MLAROSA said:


> Look, after this tragedies we all get emotional and want to ban everything. I get it. If there was no guns, no shootings would happen. That is fantasy land. There will always be guns in the real world. The best we can do is to limit violence by being responsibile citizens. By taking our safety in our own hands and not depending on others to protect us.


A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths
http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/



> In part by forbidding almost all forms of firearm ownership, Japan has as few as two gun-related homicides a year.


Just saying.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

boatnut said:


> Let's face it, the responsible gun owners are not the ones that are the problem. It's the nut jobs and criminals that obtain weapons illegally for the most part that are the problem.
> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php


Most, if not all of the firearms on the market today were initially sold legally. So the responsible gun owners are Part of the problem because they let(sometimes unintentionally)them get into the wrong hands.. Make gun ownership like marriage or parenting a minor. No divorce or they are your responsibility until they grow up, which in this case they don't.


----------



## fishingful

My aunts brought up "banning guns" at Christmas. They are all teachers. The main thing I see with the issue is they know nothing about guns other than what they see on TV. My one aunt kept saying "they need to take the AUTOMATIC guns away" I said only the military and people with special permits or criminals have automatics. She never did get it after explaining it to her. My mom surprisingly wants to get a ccw and some weapons for protection and sport shooting. This from a woman that never let me have plastic guns as a child. My girlfriends father gave her and I a ccw class as a Christmas gift. If you want an assault style weapon I think you should be able to own one. The gun does not walk in and shoot itself there has to be someone crazy behind the gun. But the people that obey the laws are unable to defend themselves because people that are criminals are going to commit crimes where they know people are weak. I haven't heard of many random shootings at gun shops or gun shows lately.


----------



## boatnut

MassillonBuckeye said:


> A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths
> http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/
> 
> 
> 
> Just saying.


so are you for an all out ban on weapons? there are 300 million guns in this country. good luck with that.


----------



## boatnut

MassillonBuckeye said:


> Most, if not all of the firearms on the market today were initially sold legally. So the responsible gun owners are Part of the problem because they let(sometimes unintentionally)them get into the wrong hands.. Make gun ownership like marriage or parenting a minor. No divorce or they are your responsibility until they grow up, which in this case they don't.


According to this article, the majority of guns used in crimes are obtained from "rogue" FFL dealers as well as being "borrowed", "gifts" and stolen". It doesn't make it sound like individuals are being irresponsible in letting guns get into wrong hands. The exception might be a private sale to someone that is a "straw" purchase.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html


----------



## boatnut

new gallup poll-

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2012/12/gallop_record_n.php


----------



## viper1

Well this isnt Japan but if you like it better go there! Dont try to change things because you dont like them. And a man who believes in no guns has no place on a hunting and sportsman site! My 2 cents!


----------



## mattwill00

boatnut said:


> so are you for an all out ban on weapons? there are 300 million guns in this country. good luck with that.



I don't think he is saying that, I think he is showing the correlation between guns and homicides. There's always a few people after tragedies like this who feel like people need MORE guns, like that would solve societies crime problems.

edit: and providing a counterpoint to boatnut's statement that there will always be shootings even if guns were banned, which this stat proves false.

btw I, in no way shape or form, believe in an all out ban of guns. Nor do I believe that was the point of that stat


----------



## Lundy

viper1 said:


> Well this isnt Japan but if you like it better go there! Dont try to change things because you dont like them. And a man who believes in no guns has no place on a hunting and sportsman site! My 2 cents!


It would be very difficult for me to be in more disagreement with any post I've seen recently anywhere.

He has just as much right to believe how he believes and to be a member of OGF as you do.

He has the same right to want more gun control as I do to want more guns.

You express your rights as absolute as you stomp on anothers rights, how sad.


----------



## goolies

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## viper1

Lundy said:


> It would be very difficult for me to be in more disagreement with any post I've seen recently anywhere.
> 
> He has just as much right to believe how he believes and to be a member of OGF as you do.
> 
> He has the same right to want more gun control as I do to want more guns.
> 
> You express your rights as absolute as you stomp on anothers rights, how sad.


What are you doing Lundy? I said how i feel because I do. I dont agree just to make people feel their right. You say I stomp on others right and im wrong so what are you doing to mine with your absolute judgement? I can not see any sportsman agreeing to take any sportsman's guns away. Reminds me of the old fight between re-curves,compounds and cross bows. Just because the sportsman uses these rifles in tournaments people feel its ok to stop them. But they want to have their own guns. Simple divide and conquer. 
Also a man who believes no guns should be allowed doesn't belong on a hunting site.
Not stomping on any ones rights as I see it. Just stating the truth.Or isnt that allowed no more? Because it sure seems some have a hard time handling it.


----------



## lotaluck

viper1 said:


> What are you doing Lundy? I said how i feel because I do. I dont agree just to make people feel their right. You say I stomp on others right and im wrong so what are you doing to mine with your absolute judgement? I can not see any sportsman agreeing to take any sportsman's guns away. Reminds me of the old fight between re-curves,compounds and cross bows. Just because the sportsman uses these rifles in tournaments people feel its ok to stop them. But they want to have their own guns. Simple divide and conquer.
> Also a man who believes no guns should be allowed doesn't belong on a hunting site.
> Not stomping on any ones rights as I see it. Just stating the truth.Or isnt that allowed no more? Because it sure seems some have a hard time handling it.


Viper, I understand where you are coming from and more often than not I agree with your views. Over the last few weeks I have felt my blood pressure rise over this issue and all the negative press it has been getting and from what I believe to be the extreme left news broadcasts. I have been in debates with people that I honestly thought I hared the same views with. 
I have talked myself into being more tolerant of others views here recently. While I may not agree I am more tolerant. 
I have found that the majority of these discussions have lead to people quoting what they heard on the news and using the same verbiage. My point is I think we are quicky becoming the minority on this subject and it is only going to get worse with the negative press.


----------



## Lundy

Viper1,

If you don't see the very basic fundamental problems with your expressed position there are no words from me that could ever explain it to you.

You have the absolute right to feel that way however.



_Originally Posted by viper1 
Well this isnt Japan but if you like it better go there! Dont try to change things because you dont like them. And a man who believes in no guns has no place on a hunting and sportsman site! My 2 cents! _


----------



## Rod-Man

Buying into and participation in the gun control debate has no advantage. A person in this country only needs one reason to own a gun. They want to. Its the only contributing factor in whether or not I'll buy a firearm from now until the end of my days. What other reason should a "free" person need? It is impossible to be a "free" person and have others protecting you from yourself.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## boatnut

goolies said:


> When they say "...ban the possession of a handgun.." does the term possession refer to ownership or carry?
> 
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


I have to assume it's possession.


----------



## boatnut

Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence?Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security? Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place.

Our freedoms as Americans preceded gun control laws, the TSA, or the Department of Homeland Security. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it.


----------



## Rod-Man

boatnut said:


> Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence?Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security? Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place.
> 
> Our freedoms as Americans preceded gun control laws, the TSA, or the Department of Homeland Security. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it.


+1

Here's an idea. Make it tougher to kill children at school.

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/1793773

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

Lundy said:


> It would be very difficult for me to be in more disagreement with any post I've seen recently anywhere.
> 
> He has just as much right to believe how he believes and to be a member of OGF as you do.
> 
> He has the same right to want more gun control as I do to want more guns.
> 
> You express your rights as absolute as you stomp on anothers rights, how sad.


I want another gun pretty bad actually. I think I decided I want to hunt deer next year. That's for a different thread though.


----------



## viper1

I really don't care if you or any one agrees with me. I have my opinion based on what ive seen and read. I find this thread and some of the peoples attitudes and feelings toward this to be terribly uninformed. Seems that the biggest backers are the ones who always become scared when bad things happen. 
People are people and laws will not stop the evil ones from doing evil! That is a childish but nice thought. But most adults do grow up to realize it or did back a ways. 
Law enforcement don't protect the punish law breakers. And 99% of the time arrive after the crime is over. If it wasn't guns it would be something else. The problem is people that are so afraid don't want the others to have guns and be safer then them.
The guns they want to ban are guns a lot of our veterans use in sporting events and certain others. That is as safe or more then hunting. And I think if a veteran sooner shoot an AK he has earned the right too! We all have the same shell limits in effect so if there deer hunting the caliper and shells have a limit. So why is the hunter more entitled to our veterans?
You want to stop the problems keep the bad people off the street and execute killers. My self if I wanted you dead it would be an easy task, Gun or no Gun. And if they want a large group. Just go to goggle and it will tell you step by step. So tell me why is that their?
Put it all falls back on the younger generation and the poor job so many are doing raising kids. And Parent who drink, and use drugs and are low lifes. I think people should be background checked, genes checked and tested for maturity before allowing to have kids. Its not the guns ruing this country its the young or middle age parents with real bad habit's and no respect passing it on. And when those type out number the brave ,hard working and god fearing ones we are done.


----------



## MLAROSA

MassillonBuckeye said:


> A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths
> http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/
> 
> 
> 
> Just saying.


Are you willing to give up all your other rights to be more like the Japanese?

For example, they have no right to privacy. You can be searched at anytime by Japanese police, for no reason. 

The suicide rate in Japan is also a lot higher than ours. Parents who commit suicide typically go ahead and kill their children too, since leaving your children an orphan would be burdensome to others.

If you would like to live in Japanese culture, then you can continue your fight to do so, I will continue my fight to live in freedom.


----------



## buckeye dan

Arguments and statistics from other countries don't always work.

They never had a protected right to arms to begin with. Governments were able to overcome various weaponry hurdles with extreme measures unimpeded. In some countries the general populous were never allowed access to firearms or firearms were very limited from the start in that only the government was allowed them.

Our nation has 2A which has allowed us to develop as a nation with weapons. That was by design and it was intentional. We haven't had several centuries of disarmament to keep the arms from the people.

Violence and rebellion has occurred in virtually every nation but some of them were disarmed long before the firearm came into existence. This is what gave birth to the martial arts and a lot of weaponry associated with them. Many of those weapons were modified farm implements born of a time when people were not allowed to posses common arms. Yesterday's grain thrasher is today's nunchaku.

Regarding Japan's numbers you need to know their history:
http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

MLAROSA said:


> Are you willing to give up all your other rights to be more like the Japanese?
> 
> For example, they have no right to privacy. You can be searched at anytime by Japanese police, for no reason.
> 
> The suicide rate in Japan is also a lot higher than ours. Parents who commit suicide typically go ahead and kill their children too, since leaving your children an orphan would be burdensome to others.
> 
> If you would like to live in Japanese culture, then you can continue your fight to do so, I will continue my fight to live in freedom.


You think you have a right to privacy? Do you understand anything about the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act? Have you flown lately? Whether you like it or not we gave up a lot of those rights shortly after 9/11.

You don't think there are murder suicides here? Plenty of crazies here think/thought they were going to save their children from a life of sin and despair and killed them. Sent them to a better place. We're just as nuts and depressed. If not more.

Why would me commenting on the low gun numbers in Japan automatically mean I'm fighting to be part of their culture? You said a land without guns and gun violence is a fantasy land which it clearly isn't. Did I say I thought we should adopt their model?


----------



## boatnut

MassillonBuckeye said:


> You think you have a right to privacy? Do you understand anything about the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act? Have you flown lately? Whether you like it or not we gave up a lot of those rights shortly after 9/11.


This is the world of government provided &#8220;security,&#8221; a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse.

Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security? Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place.

Our freedoms as Americans preceded gun control laws, the TSA, or the Department of Homeland Security.Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it.

On another note, Chicago, which is known for it's very strict gun laws, just recorded their 500th homicide of the year.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

boatnut said:


> This is the world of government provided &#8220;security,&#8221; a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse.
> 
> Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security? Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place.
> 
> Our freedoms as Americans preceded gun control laws, the TSA, or the Department of Homeland Security.Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it.
> 
> On another note, Chicago, which is known for it's very strict gun laws, just recorded their 500th homicide of the year.


Show me where I said anything about the government keeping anyone safe please.


----------



## MLAROSA

> LAS VEGAS (FOX5) -
> One man is dead and three suspects remain on the loose following a home invasion Monday morning in the northwest part of the valley.


http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/20418735/police-home-invasion-suspect-shot-killed



> An Abilene woman shot and killed her estranged ex-boyfriend Wednesday after police said he broke into her home and assaulted her.


http://www.ktxs.com/news/UPDATED-Ab...ing/-/14769632/17898342/-/stwg8r/-/index.html

I am not sure what point you are trying to make, but here are a couple of the thousands and thousands of cases where firearms were used in self defense.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

Yeah that was a little knee jerk. My point was I've seen comments a few times now about only shootings in weapons free areas. Violence knows no bounds. Everyone wants to be safe, everyone wants to be free. I just ready to go do some ice fishin.


----------



## viper1

MassillonBuckeye said:


> Yeah that was a little knee jerk. My point was I've seen comments a few times now about only shootings in weapons free areas. Violence knows no bounds. Everyone wants to be safe, everyone wants to be free. I just ready to go do some ice fishin.



Very true and more gun law cant change it. And if it don't freeze solid soon I'll go nuts. But on the bright side got two deer this week. Lots of sausage and Salami.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

By its very definition, you cannot regulate crazy. And I don't think thats what the rational people are talking about. Those are the extremists on both sides which I feel we'd all do ourselves service to filter much of that out and take it for what it's worth. Everyone knows there isn't going to be some great round up of everyones weapons. Involuntary forfeiture would never fly unless they were ready for a pretty violent revolt which I HONESTLY don't think the government is ready for or EVEN REMOTELY moving in that direction. Don't bother quoting that crap about the DHS buying up all the bullets either. Both sides there might as well be talking about sasquatch(oh wait we do that too). Ahhhh 


Humility is severely lacking in our society. Everyone thinks they have to be the biggest, the best, the toughest etc. They have the best ideas and can't be wrong. Compound that with the whole "15 minutes of fame" and "youtube phenomenon" and you have a potentially volatile mix. "I'm gonna shock the world" type of stuff. When you aren't quite right in the melon that stuff can really take a hold and affect the way a person behaves. In their own twisted way its their way to succeed in a world seemingly out to get them and go as far as suicide to prevent someone from stopping it. Or some sort of prophetic mission one undertakes to undo or prevent some deed they feel strongly against. See Timothy McVeigh and the bombing of the Edward P. Murrah building back in the 90s. The shock comes at the ease of which a person like that was able to access the tools he needed to accomplish his ultimate mission.


----------



## Hardtop

Wow......! Thanks again to the MOD's for allowing this discussion to progress, the guys here represent both part of the problem and part of the solution to this gun issue. and we all learn a little with each new persons slant on things. Lundy, Ezbite, and others who defend AW's..... I love reading your posts on fishing and hunting, you have an earned respect here among outdoorsmen and I look forward to that continued bond in the future.
Please understand that those of us here who see the other side of this debate are just as commited to the outdoors and traditional gun ownership as each of you. And as I define in the title of the original post, the concern for keeping our traditional guns is why we oppose the poeple killers that have flooded the market in the last couple decades.I firmly beleive that if something isn't done to reduce gun violence ( and soon) we or our kids will see sweeping legislation that could threaten all gun ownership.
Lots of discussion here about places where gun laws DON"T work, but no dicussion of the places it does work : 
US-liberal gun laws, promoted mainly to kill poeple, over 12,000 gun deaths per year and "mass killings" on a steep rise
UK-tight gun laws, less than two dozen gun deaths per year
Austrailia- 1986-1996 they had 13 mass killings.Since gun restrictions
in 1996 they have had ZERO .......
Don't think this can't happen here......the fact that fellow outdoorsmen are asking for an end to this "people killer" image that is being marketed by the nra, teddy, and gun makers should be a wake up call. Who among us really desires this arms race.......wouldn't it be nice to not have to worry about each next murder/massacre. If you don't see the connection between this people killer marketing and the problem we have, you are truely a part of the problem, and an accessory to each new mass killing


----------



## Lundy

Hardtop,

There is not one person I know and certainly none that have participated in this thread that would not want desperately to see an end to senseless killings. The last thing gun owners want is for some wacko to kill a bunch of people so that many can use it as an excuse to blame the gun for breaking the law.

The difference comes in the opinions of how you address the problem.

It is not fair analysis to compare the USA to other countries. There are no other countries like the USA, There are no other countries that have our history.

I also do not believe you can pick and choose segments of a society as examples of what we as a country should or could become. If you want European gun laws you also need the reduced personal freedom and taxation and over bearing government that comes with that. I don't think you can bake a piece of the pie, I think you have to bake a whole pie. Short of banning private ownership of any firearm you can not eliminate violent acts with a firearm. That could never happen for a multitude of reasons. That horse was let out of the barn over 200 years ago

I do find it a little bit strange that so many today that want to reduce personal gun ownership rights are so vocally opposed to personal privacy rights legislation like the Patriot Act. 

I am 100% in favor of any meaningful action that could reduce these crimes. I am 100% opposed to feel good legislation, at the expense of personal freedom, that will have no effect on the problem at hand.

I am still waiting for someone much smarter than me to come up with some ideas that might help. I haven't heard any yet.


----------



## Bad Bub

Hardtop said:


> Wow......! Thanks again to the MOD's for allowing this discussion to progress, the guys here represent both part of the problem and part of the solution to this gun issue. and we all learn a little with each new persons slant on things. Lundy, Ezbite, and others who defend AW's..... I love reading your posts on fishing and hunting, you have an earned respect here among outdoorsmen and I look forward to that continued bond in the future.
> Please understand that those of us here who see the other side of this debate are just as commited to the outdoors and traditional gun ownership as each of you. And as I define in the title of the original post, the concern for keeping our traditional guns is why we oppose the poeple killers that have flooded the market in the last couple decades.I firmly beleive that if something isn't done to reduce gun violence ( and soon) we or our kids will see sweeping legislation that could threaten all gun ownership.
> Lots of discussion here about places where gun laws DON"T work, but no dicussion of the places it does work :
> US-liberal gun laws, promoted mainly to kill poeple, over 12,000 gun deaths per year and "mass killings" on a steep rise
> UK-tight gun laws, less than two dozen gun deaths per year
> Austrailia- 1986-1996 they had 13 mass killings.Since gun restrictions
> in 1996 they have had ZERO .......
> Don't think this can't happen here......the fact that fellow outdoorsmen are asking for an end to this "people killer" image that is being marketed by the nra, teddy, and gun makers should be a wake up call. Who among us really desires this arms race.......wouldn't it be nice to not have to worry about each next murder/massacre. If you don't see the connection between this people killer marketing and the problem we have, you are truely a part of the problem, and an accessory to each new mass killing


I just don't believe the NRA, uncle Ted and gun makers are trying to promote the AR-15 type rifles as people killers. My neighbors rock river arms is camo and was marketed as a coyote rifle. I've never once seen an ad that said "The most efficient people killer made!" The uninformed media are the ones that push them as people killers. Basically every gun in existence was originally designed as a weapon for the military and law enforcement at one time or another then was adopted by the general public for hunting, sport shooting, self defense, etc... for the same reasons the military used them, which is comfort, adjustability, concelalability, maneuverability, reliability, etc.... the .223 round that most of the AR style guns use is not a huge "people stopper" round. Many people wouldn't want to use one while hunting for anything larger than a coyote. The fact that it's A cheap round, with low recoil, flat shooting, and accurate is why they were so popular with the military and police forces. Not because you could kill a bunch of people in a short amount of time. There are way better options out there than that.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## eatinbass

Hardtop said:


> I have been blessed to have been born into a hunting,responsible gun owner family like most of you. For the first 35 yrs of my life, guns were tools we used to provide food for our families,target shoot, and in the worst case scenerio to protect the family.
> But 20-25 yrs ago, things started to change, and have escalated to the mess we have now, where guns are now promoted as "weapons" to defend the owner from bad guys and political policy they might disagree with someday. And instead of the focus being on shooting animals for food, guns are being "promoted" by manufactures...the NRA, Uncle Ted, and many here as "weapons" to kill people.
> If you value your right to own guns and pass that earlier mentioned family heritage on to your Grandkids, join me in doing all we can to stop thei moronis "arms race" and get rid of the guns that symbolize this People Killer image.........HT


 I like hunting with my AR platform. Its lighter than my bolt gun and provides a faster follow up shot. Photo is taken from one of our hog hunts, where this platform excels in putting bacon on the table. This is not a "People Killer" in my eyes anymore that my car is.


----------



## viper1

Was raised the same way. And yes really didn't need the meat for years. But as a disabled senior American I find things are different now. I do kill for meat more then sport, I raise my gardens and fruit trees to can or freeze for food. With out it we would eat very little. My guns are also used to protect as police are their to serve in solving crimes not stopping.
I practice homesteading not to be green or cool! But from necessity. I know people would love to think its not needed these days. But a lot of us have lost our life savings in those 401 k pension plans. And if you find your self living on Social security or S.S. disability you'll find its hard to get by. Especially if you got sick way to early to retire. 
Guns like any thing can be considered a weapon. But taking them away or banning any thing doesn't work. Also we are not Mexico or Japan we are America! With a bill of rights and a constitution to follow. We have internet where you can get directions on how to build nuclear bombs, Pipe bombs and incendiary devices. And a lot more. Poison gas, poisons to poison water and foods. So mass murder is easier then ever. And a lot of the required stuff is found in every day stuff and easy to get. A lot easier then guns even.
So the real problem that every one seems to ignore. Is how to raise and stop these people who do this. It doesn't happen over night. Usually starts with how they were raised, what they were allowed to do, who they grew up and hung out with and way they came to be this angry to snap. Now if you let them get this bad the only way to solve it is KILL THEM! Now put the blame where it belongs. Because a lot of us still need our guns.


----------



## Hook N Book

Viper,
Seriously? This is not about how someone was raised. It's about rights and mental illness. Any weapon along with a person thats incapable of knowing fantasy versus fiction are the problem. Please do not make this just about a persons up bring...it's much deeper then that.
Do yourself a favor and research the real issue...Mental health.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

How was Timothy McVeighs upbringing? He was also in the military how long? How about his buddy Terry Nichols?

Whens the last time someone used gas to kill a bunch of people? Incendiaries? I keep seeing people talking about all the different things you can use to kill a bunch of people but the fact remains, most just grab some guns. Who was the last mass murderer to use a hammer to kill a bunch of folks at once? Doesn't happen. There are no plans on the internet to make an operable nuclear weapon by the way. Pipe bombs yes. But again, whens the last time a pipe bomb killed a bunch of people? They haven't. Who was the last person to use a car for mass murder and how many people did they kill? My argument isn't to comdemn the firearms, just the notion that people use just anything laying around to go on a rampage.


----------



## Rod-Man

I'm beginning to enjoy the nonsense of this thread. 



posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## viper1

Hook N Book said:


> Viper,
> Seriously? This is not about how someone was raised. It's about rights and mental illness. Any weapon along with a person thats incapable of knowing fantasy versus fiction are the problem. Please do not make this just about a persons up bring...it's much deeper then that.
> Do yourself a favor and research the real issue...Mental health.


Mental health is a lot because of how people are raised , how they grow up and personal issues. and I have researched the issues as well as lived along side it 60 years. I had a son go ballistic an ex marine special forces. I had to take him down personally. I wasn't the one to raise him because of issues. Between his pampered raising and the marines was all it took to create a crumbled person. Have seen others who cracked and it was also from their raising and their life's.
As I said if you read it. Its not the weapons but the people! And there are many reasons for mental problems. But No dont think I have confused a thing. But if i have please point it out. Id be glad to hear an intelligent way to prevent people from killing others. Its not like you can look at them and tell. Just tired of the lamed uninformed people who think guns even play a role in this. I am saying they use them because they have them, But take them away and they'll use something else. As this world provides plenty.


----------



## MLAROSA

MassillonBuckeye said:


> Whens the last time someone used gas to kill a bunch of people?


You can't be serious asking this, can you? Nearly every dictator since hitler has used gas to kill their own people.



MassillonBuckeye said:


> Who was the last mass murderer to use a hammer to kill a bunch of folks at once? Doesn't happen.


Not a mass murder, but none the less killed two people.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-18/...rty-police-captain-police-custody?_s=PM:CRIME




MassillonBuckeye said:


> But again, whens the last time a pipe bomb killed a bunch of people?


Here is a refresher for you. 2 dead 111 injured, right here in the good old US of A

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Centennial_Olympic_Park_bombing



MassillonBuckeye said:


> They haven't.


Yes they have. See the below link for a list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Pipe_bomb

_*Apparently for some reason the forum rejects wiki links, so I had to put a space in the links. *_



MassillonBuckeye said:


> Who was the last person to use a car for mass murder and how many people did they kill?


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203358704577237770874060912.html



MassillonBuckeye said:


> My argument isn't to comdemn the firearms, just the notion that people use just anything laying around to go on a rampage.


You could have fooled me. You have said nothing positive in this thread about firearms. You only deny that you don't hate them. Yet when asked repeatedly what your point is, you ignore and keep posting nonsense.

Explain this, semi automatic firearms have been around since 1885, but not for 100+ years have people used them in mass murders. Why now?


----------



## viper1

Doesn't matter how long a go it was used. all country's have it because it is so easy to make. Even at home. Were talking about people who want to kill masses. And If I ever did gas would be a serious way. So would be pipe bombs as easy to make and set off with a timer or a fuse. Even a remote. Just trying to show no one is ever safe. With or with out guns.


----------



## eatinbass

Self deleted.


----------



## eatinbass

Guns are tools...
Many of us use them to put food on the table, much the way we use a rod and tackle.
Some mentally unstable people use them to kill people because its convenient and the most efficient method they can come up with. If you recall 907 died in Jonestown by Cyanide....


----------



## Rod-Man

Well this one smoldered out. I'll stoke it again. 






posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## eatinbass

He's got a point.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## triton189

boatnut said:


> This is the world of government provided security, a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse.
> 
> Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security? Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place.
> 
> Our freedoms as Americans preceded gun control laws, the TSA, or the Department of Homeland Security.Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it.
> 
> On another note, Chicago, which is known for it's very strict gun laws, just recorded their 500th homicide of the year.


Great Post...!


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

eatinbass said:


> Guns are tools...
> Many of us use them to put food on the table, much the way we use a rod and tackle.
> Some mentally unstable people use them to kill people because its convenient and the most efficient method they can come up with. If you recall 907 died in Jonestown by Cyanide....


Good point.


----------



## Rod-Man

The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. Hell, if the Jews in Warsaw ghetto had the firepower and ammunition the Nazis did, some of Poland might have stayed free and more people would have survived the Holocaust. They are a million other examples.
History is riddled with horrific acts by over reaching leaders. Don't let this experiment in freedom we have going on for the last couple hundred years fool you. The 2nd amendment isn't there to protect hunting or other sporting activities. Its right behind our freedom of speech in the B.O.R. so that we can shoot at tyrants that would try to control us.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Net

Closed. Thank you to all whose post did not get deleted.


----------

