# A "Threat" of what's ahead in 2016"The Ban"



## Fishtracker1 (Mar 29, 2009)

A sad way to end 2015, hopefully we can fight this off again. If we don't I fear we a done as a free nation. We have to put an unrelenting pressure on our legislative leaders and hold their feet to the fire. If we allow this to be passed into law, no country will fear us any longer. Our borders are wide open and we will not be able to protect loved ones, our property or ourselves. Better brush up on a second language!

"H.R.4269 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2015"
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4269/cosponsors

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4269/text


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

Fishtracker1 said:


> A sad way to end 2015, hopefully we can fight this off again. If we don't I fear we a done as a free nation. We have to put an unrelenting pressure on our legislative leaders and hold their feet to the fire. If we allow this to be passed into law, no country will fear us any longer. Our borders are wide open and we will not be able to protect loved ones, our property or ourselves. Better brush up on a second language!
> 
> "H.R.4269 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2015"
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4269/cosponsors
> ...





Fishtracker1 said:


> A sad way to end 2015, hopefully we can fight this off again. If we don't I fear we a done as a free nation. We have to put an unrelenting pressure on our legislative leaders and hold their feet to the fire. If we allow this to be passed into law, no country will fear us any longer. Our borders are wide open and we will not be able to protect loved ones, our property or ourselves. Better brush up on a second language!
> 
> "H.R.4269 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2015"
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4269/cosponsors
> ...


All of us need to contact our reps. I do know I won't give mine up.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

So what your saying is we all need unrestricted access to assault weapons?


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

Fishtracker1 said:


> A sad way to end 2015, hopefully we can fight this off again. If we don't I fear we a done as a free nation. We have to put an unrelenting pressure on our legislative leaders and hold their feet to the fire. If we allow this to be passed into law, no country will fear us any longer. Our borders are wide open and we will not be able to protect loved ones, our property or ourselves. Better brush up on a second language!
> 
> "H.R.4269 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2015"
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4269/cosponsors
> ...


Passing this would be one of the best ways I can think of to start a civil war.


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

robertj298 said:


> So what your saying is we all need unrestricted access to assault weapons?


Yes ...people who obey the law should


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

fastwater said:


> Passing this would be one of the best ways I can think of to start a civil war.


Aggreed..110 percent


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

Saugeye Tom said:


> Yes ...people who obey the law should


So then it doesn't matter if they are mentally unstable or on a terrorist watch list?


----------



## mkalink (Mar 28, 2010)

I guess I better hurry up and buy another.


----------



## 9Left (Jun 23, 2012)

winter gun threads..... fun times... im going fishing


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

Is this any different than the ban of 1984 which was supported by Ronald Reagan?


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

robertj298 said:


> So then it doesn't matter if they are mentally unstable or on a terrorist watch list?


Do I really need to reply to that man? Get a grip


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

Saugeye Tom said:


> Do I really need to reply to that man? Get a grip


Are those not people that obey the law?


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

robertj298 said:


> So then it doesn't matter if they are mentally unstable or on a terrorist watch list?


...so you really think more restrictive gun laws or even banning the sale and importation of certain weapons will keep someone determined to committing murder(which we know is already illegal)from getting ahold of them?
If so, how did prohibition pan out? What about the decades old war on illegal drugs? Please note illegal heroin and illegal prescription opioid drugs abuse are at epidemic levels never seen before in our society. And just for the record, marijuanna use has never slowed down and after 50yrs of the war on it without success is becoming so sociably acceptable it's becoming legal in many states.
Of course someone certified with certain mental disorders should not be able to own guns. But as it stands, the term 'mental disorders' can cover a multitude of areas. We need to classify and be more specifics what mental disorders should eliminate the possibility of gun ownership.
People on terrorist watch list should not be allowed access to guns either. Furthermore...once proven direct connection to terrorist orgs. or activity they should be in prison. Their imprisonment is not currently happening because we have a 'politically correct' society that is bound and determined to offer innocent lives up to these wackos wanting to kill people. Then this same PC society has the audacity to look the victims family in the face and send their condolences. 
Lastly, I am a law abiding U.S. citizen. I have read the Constitution and the history thereof. My Constitutional rights are simply not up for debate and I refuse to give them up.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

fastwater said:


> ...so you really think more restrictive gun laws or even banning the sale and importation of certain weapons will keep someone determined to committing murder(which we know is already illegal)from getting ahold of them?
> If so, how did prohibition pan out? What about the decades old war on illegal drugs? Please note illegal heroin and illegal prescription opioid drugs abuse are at epidemic levels never seen before in our society. And just for the record, marijuanna use has never slowed down and after 50yrs of the war on it without success is becoming so sociably acceptable it's becoming legal in many states.
> Of course someone certified with certain mental disorders should not be able to own guns. But as it stands, the term 'mental disorders' can cover a multitude of areas. We need to classify and be more specifics what mental disorders should eliminate the possibility of gun ownership.
> People on terrorist watch list should not be allowed access to guns either. Furthermore...once proven direct connection to terrorist orgs. or activity they should be in prison.
> Lastly, I am a law abiding U.S. citizen. I have read the Constitution and the history thereof. My Constitutional rights are simply not up for debate and I refuse to give them up.


So you really don't think that if someone wants to kill multitudes of innocent people it is easier to do so with an assault weapon that is designed for that purpose? If that is the case why do we restrict fully automatic weapons? Just because you have read the Constitution doesn't make you someone qualified to interpret it just as because I have read the bible doesn't make me a minister .


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

fastwater said:


> ...so you really think more restrictive gun laws or even banning the sale and importation of certain weapons will keep someone determined to committing murder(which we know is already illegal)from getting ahold of them?
> If so, how did prohibition pan out? What about the decades old war on illegal drugs? Please note illegal heroin and illegal prescription opioid drugs abuse are at epidemic levels never seen before in our society. And just for the record, marijuanna use has never slowed down and after 50yrs of the war on it without success is becoming so sociably acceptable it's becoming legal in many states.
> Of course someone certified with certain mental disorders should not be able to own guns. But as it stands, the term 'mental disorders' can cover a multitude of areas. We need to classify and be more specifics what mental disorders should eliminate the possibility of gun ownership.
> People on terrorist watch list should not be allowed access to guns either. Furthermore...once proven direct connection to terrorist orgs. or activity they should be in prison. Their imprisonment is not currently happening because we have a 'politically correct' society that is bound and determined to offer innocent lives up to these wackos wanting to kill people. Then this same PC society has the audacity to look the victims family in the face and send their condolences.
> Lastly, I am a law abiding U.S. citizen. I have read the Constitution and the history thereof. My Constitutional rights are simply not up for debate and I refuse to give them up.


Man...don't even bother with the troll


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

I believe he understands but wants to cause argument


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

Saugeye Tom said:


> I believe he understands but wants to cause argument


No I don't understand. I own multiple guns for hunting and self protection but I see no need to own assault weapons designed to kill multiple human beings. I also don't see why the NRA is against more thorough background checks for those wishing to purchase guns. Even Ronald Reagan was for sensible gun control.


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

robertj298 said:


> So you really don't think that if someone wants to kill multitudes of innocent people it is easier to do so with an assault weapon that is designed for that purpose? If that is the case why do we restrict fully automatic weapons? Just because you have read the Constitution doesn't make you someone qualified to interpret it just as because I have read the bible doesn't make me a minister .


I would ask, since you don't know me that you reframe from telling me what I'm qualified for and what I'm not. 
Also, if someone wants to kill multitudes of people, there are no laws or bans that will stop them from obtaining the means to do so. 
While it may make us feel all warm and fuzzy inside to instill laws or bans on certain weapons, once again, history has proven time and time again that laws will not stop someone destined to break them. 
You really need to research the very restrictive gun laws in NYC, Washington DC, Chicago,etc and then research the number of murders with firearms that happen there. Incidentally, while you are researching please note that there are more murders in a good weekend in Chicago then any one mass murder with a firearm in our history.
Have you ever stopped to think why most every mass shooting happens in a gun restricted area? 
Have you ever thought that if all guns were banned in the world(fantasy of course)there would still be mass murders happen here just the same? Just because the tools of evil may change, there will always be evil.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

fastwater said:


> I would ask, since you don't know me that you reframe from telling me what I'm qualified for and what I'm not.
> Also, if someone wants to kill multitudes of people, there are no laws or bans that will stop them from obtaining the means to do so.
> While it may make us feel all warm and fuzzy inside to instill laws or bans on certain weapons, once again, history has proven time and time again that laws will not stop someone destined to break them.
> You really need to research the very restrictive gun laws in NYC, Washington DC, Chicago,etc and then research the number of murders with firearms that happen there. Incidentally, while you are researching please note that there are more murders in a good weekend in Chicago then any one mass murder with a firearm in our history.
> ...


I apologize.. I didn't know you were more qualified on Constitutional law than this guy. 
Here is Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court reversed a long-held position and ruled that the Second Amendment did give Americans an individual right to own firearms. The court said the District’s ban on handguns in private homes went too far, but that regulation of gun ownership was compatible with the Second Amendment:


----------



## Dovans (Nov 15, 2011)

I dont really see any use of the mis-named assault rifle. The fact it can kill more then other firearms I think is overblown. I can just as easily kill twenty folks with my S&W as I can with my sons AR. I can also use pipe bombs, shotguns, spears, knives, forks to kill someone. I am more worried about someone getting hold of used nuclear material and poisoning a city. Or poisoning a city by destroying the water supply.


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

robertj298 said:


> I apologize.. I didn't know you were more qualified on Constitutional law than this guy.
> Here is Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court reversed a long-held position and ruled that the Second Amendment did give Americans an individual right to own firearms. The court said the District’s ban on handguns in private homes went too far, but that regulation of gun ownership was compatible with the Second Amendment:


Your apology is accepted. You may want to read more into Justice Scalia's District of Columbia vs Heller comments and the reasons for the comments when referring to the differences between gun laws in Washington DC and other states. You may also note that the District of Columbia vs Heller verdict shot down the gun restrictions/bans of 1975 claiming them un-constitutional


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

fastwater said:


> Your apology is accepted. You may want to read more into Justice Scalia's District of Columbia vs Heller comments and the reasons for the comments when referring to the differences between gun laws in Washington DC and other states. You may also note that the District of Columbia vs Heller verdict shot down the gun restrictions/bans of 1975 claiming them un-constitutional


Justice Scalia also wrote:

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

The prefatory clause to which the justice refers, of course, is the one about “a well-regulated militia.” The AR-15, used in San Bernardino, is an M-16 knockoff.

So rather than saying “assault weapons,” in the future perhaps we should say “the kinds of weapons that Justice Antonin Scalia has defined as ‘dangerous and unusual’ and subject to regulation or an outright ban under the Second Amendment.”


----------



## Carver (Jan 20, 2010)

robertj298 said:


> Are those not people that obey the law?


Some common sense please.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

Here


Carver said:


> Some common sense please.


I agree.
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/18/nra..._legally_purchased_guns_in_the_last_10_years/


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

robertj298 said:


> No I don't understand. I own multiple guns for hunting and self protection but I see no need to own assault weapons designed to kill multiple human beings. I also don't see why the NRA is against more thorough background checks for those wishing to purchase guns. Even Ronald Reagan was for sensible gun control.


Mind saying what kind of hunting /sd weapons you own?


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

fastwater said:


> Mind saying what kind of hunting /sd weapons you own?


Sure I have an old Ithaca 16 gauge pump, a 20 gauge Nikko O/U and a S&W 9mm. Shield.


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

Surely not an old model of Ithaca capable of bump firing is it?
By the way, love the old 16's. Especially Ithaca's.

Would you say it should be illegal for a person to own more than one semi auto handgun?


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

fastwater said:


> Surely not an old model of Ithaca capable of bump firing is it?
> By the way, love the old 16's. Especially Ithaca's.
> 
> Would you say it should be illegal for a person to own more than one semi auto handgun?


I didn't know I could bump fire my Ithaca. I know I could the old model 12 I used to have. No I don't believe it should be illegal.


----------



## Slatebar (Apr 9, 2011)

robertj298 said:


> I didn't know I could bump fire my Ithaca. I know I could the old model 12 I used to have. No I don't believe it should be illegal.


 Bump fire a Model 12 ???? Would love to see that...


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

I believe the 9mm Shield is either 7 or 8 rds. Correct?
Using the Shield as an example, if someone walked into say a crowded movie theater with 4 Shields (28-32rds) Plus extra mags in pockets,with the intent of mass killing, has one in each hand and two in their waist band, do you think they are less dangerous than a guy with one semi auto 'assault' rifle?


----------



## triton175 (Feb 21, 2006)

Can we at least get the terminology right; the ARs, and similar weapons that are currently available to the civilian population are "modern sporting rifles". Assault weapons are not now, nor have they ever been, available to civilians. Assault weapons have fully automatic capability, not just semi-auto and are not available to civilians.


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

I wasn't going to chime in but I just cant help myself. I only own 4 muzzle loading rifles and a 380 and 22 hand gun and have no desire to own a high powered semi auto rifle. but my brother and nephew own several and go to the range and enjoy shooting them just as much if not more than I enjoy shooting my guns.

any gun in the wrong hands will and do kill people every day. and once they start banning certain guns where is it going to stop. most gun owners are responsible people and take great care with there guns. like has already been said banning certain guns will not stop the killing. I could take a 12 ga semi auto shotgun with the extended magazine loaded with double ought buck shot in a crowded school or theater and probably kill more people than most of the people that uses assault rifles. so lets just ban all guns. oops that wont work because then only outlaws would have guns. then they wouldn't be afraid to enter any house because they would have a good idea that the owners would be unarmed. bad people will always find ways to take lives. be it with a gun or a bomb or some other way like running a big truck into a crowd of people. I could take a few lbs of black powder for my muzzle loaders and a bunch of bullets and maybe a couple of lbs of ball bearings and make a bomb that could take out several people at one time. so lets just ban muzzle loaders. but being a good law abiding person I would never do something like mentioned above. but bad people will always find a way to take lives once they decide that's what there going to do. I've vented now so i'll stop here.
sherman


----------



## bountyhunter (Apr 28, 2004)

sherman51 said:


> I wasn't going to chime in but I just cant help myself. I only own 4 muzzle loading rifles and a 380 and 22 hand gun and have no desire to own a high powered semi auto rifle. but my brother and nephew own several and go to the range and enjoy shooting them just as much if not more than I enjoy shooting my guns.
> 
> any gun in the wrong hands will and do kill people every day. and once they start banning certain guns where is it going to stop. most gun owners are responsible people and take great care with there guns. like has already been said banning certain guns will not stop the killing. I could take a 12 ga semi auto shotgun with the extended magazine loaded with double ought buck shot in a crowded school or theater and probably kill more people than most of the people that uses assault rifles. so lets just ban all guns. oops that wont work because then only outlaws would have guns. then they wouldn't be afraid to enter any house because they would have a good idea that the owners would be unarmed. bad people will always find ways to take lives. be it with a gun or a bomb or some other way like running a big truck into a crowd of people. I could take a few lbs of black powder for my muzzle loaders and a bunch of bullets and maybe a couple of lbs of ball bearings and make a bomb that could take out several people at one time. so lets just ban muzzle loaders. but being a good law abiding person I would never do something like mentioned above. but bad people will always find a way to take lives once they decide that's what there going to do. I've vented now so i'll stop here.
> sherman


----------



## bountyhunter (Apr 28, 2004)

sherm I agree ,bad guys will always have guns no matter how much control the gov puts out there.


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

triton175 said:


> Can we at least get the terminology right; the ARs, and similar weapons that are currently available to the civilian population are "modern sporting rifles". Assault weapons are not now, nor have they ever been, available to civilians. Assault weapons have fully automatic capability, not just semi-auto and are not available to civilians.


You are correct triton 175 and thanks for pointing that out.

The problem seems to be that the anti gun establishment have labeled anything that remotely resembles the AR platform,regardless of full auto or semi auto an assault rifle for so long that people are starting to believe it.


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

robertj298 said:


> Here
> 
> I agree.
> http://www.salon.com/2015/11/18/nra..._legally_purchased_guns_in_the_last_10_years/


Huh...out of the millions of guns sold....2000 were sold to people on a wach list......how many of those committed a act of terrorism.....what is the credentials to get on that list? Are they discriminating?


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

triton175 said:


> Can we at least get the terminology right; the ARs, and similar weapons that are currently available to the civilian population are "modern sporting rifles". Assault weapons are not now, nor have they ever been, available to civilians. Assault weapons have fully automatic capability, not just semi-auto and are not available to civilians.




*Assault weapon* is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud.
*Assault weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

fastwater said:


> I believe the 9mm Shield is either 7 or 8 rds. Correct?
> Using the Shield as an example, if someone walked into say a crowded movie theater with 4 Shields (28-32rds) Plus extra mags in pockets,with the intent of mass killing, has one in each hand and two in their waist band, do you think they are less dangerous than a guy with one semi auto 'assault' rifle?


I get your point. That must be why we see so many military personnel carrying 4 or 5 handguns instead of one rifle.


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

bountyhunter said:


> sherm I agree ,bad guys will always have guns no matter how much control the gov puts out there.


The bad folks don't even need guns. Just earlier this year a piece of crap held a family of four and their housekeeper hostage in their home until someone from the homeowners company delivered money to the house. He then ordered and ate a pizza, watched TV, and after that beat them all to death with a hammer, including young children. Not sure if it was an "assault" hammer with a detachable magazine, pistol grip, or had a high capacity magazine, or it was just a standard carpenters hammer. 

Violence is behavior and guns, like hammers, knives, vehicles, swords, shovels, drugs, etc., are just a tool occasionally used when sick bastards behave in a violent manner. Guns can also be a very handy tool in the act of stopping sick bastards if they decide to attempt to exhibit violent behavior.


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

robertj298 said:


> I get your point. That must be why we see so many military personnel carrying 4 or 5 handguns instead of one rifle.


From the sound of your response, I don't think you do get my point. Either that or just like Saugeye Tom said earlier, you just want to argue on the subject. And you didn't answer my question. My question had nothing to do with the military or LE. But you attempted to skirt the point you knew I was gonna make by bringing what the military carries.

Your comments and logic don't even start to make sense. The partial quotes you cherry picked and posted from Justice Scalia referring to District of Columbia vs Heller to try and defend your position didn't do a very good job. You posted earlier that just cause you have read the Bible, doesn't make you a minister. What you did with Justice Scalia's quote is the same as what many people do with the Bible. They cherry pick certain scripture they want to live by , take those cherry picked scripture and use them out of context and throw the rest of the scriptures in the trash. Try reading all of Justice Scalia's overview of the case and what you quoted him as saying may take on a different meaning.
Gonna end my participation with you in this thread. It's apparent your mind is made up and further discussion would be fruitless. Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## Stars-n-Stripers (Nov 15, 2007)

fastwater said:


> Either that or just like Saugeye Tom said earlier, *you just want to argue on the subject*.
> It's apparent *your mind is made up* and further discussion would be fruitless. Thanks for the discussion.


Isn't that always the "point" of these gun threads? Gun advocates are correct, anyone that doesn't agree with them is incorrect?

Is there any amount of discussion that _would_ change yours, or anyone else's, mind?


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

Stars-n-Stripers said:


> Isn't that always the "point" of these gun threads? Gun advocates are correct, anyone that doesn't agree with them is incorrect?
> 
> Is there any amount of discussion that _would_ change yours, or anyone else's, mind?


Or visa versa lol


----------



## Stars-n-Stripers (Nov 15, 2007)

Egg Zactly!


----------



## jray (Jan 20, 2006)

I don't understand the logic of pointing to a Supreme Court justice as an expert to support your argument when obviously a majority of his peers disagreed with him? Also as was stated earlier, in the California shooting if a "hunting" implement such as a Remington 870 would have been used the casualties and injuries would have increased exponentially. "Assault" weapons are designed for use against an armed opponent. That is why our armed forces and law enforcement use them. School, mall, church, and in general terroristic shootings are attacks against an unarmed populous not wearing tactical gear or fighting back. In these scenarios assault weapons are less efficient. Not to mention, the most recent attack along with the the majority in history, utilized illegal weaponry. So yes great idea lets make it so that the law abiding citizens are less effective against armed assailants or maybe, tyrannical governments.


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

While some of us may not even own a rifle on the proposed 'ban' list, sometimes we need to think outside of our own backyards. There are many people that hunt with many of these rifles. Especially the AR platform. Down south and out west they are very popular for hunting hogs etc. I have a couple friends here in Ohio that hunt totes and groundhogs with them. One even has a 22 in the AR platform he hunts squirrel with.
The whole silly principle that we are gonna put a ban on a weapon that only the law abiding will conform to and think that will stop people from accessing that weapon is just absurd.
Why don't we come up with laws (or just start enforcing the ones we have)targeting these murderers? Bans haven't worked in the past in slowing crazy people down..won't work in the future.


----------



## fishingful (Apr 5, 2004)

fastwater said:


> You are correct triton 175 and thanks for pointing that out.
> 
> The problem seems to be that the anti gun establishment have labeled anything that remotely resembles the AR platform,regardless of full auto or semi auto an assault rifle for so long that people are starting to believe it.


Had the exact issue with some family members. They were saying they should ban all the "automatic wepons" tried to explain that unless you had a special license from the government or were military you could not get an auto. They don't know the difference and neither do most people. Just what they heard on the news.
They just kept saying ban them. I gave up.


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

fishingful said:


> Had the exact issue with some family members. They were saying they should ban all the "automatic wepons" tried to explain that unless you had a special license from the government or were military you could not get an auto. They don't know the difference and neither do most people. Just what they heard on the news.
> They just kept saying ban them. I gave up.


Ditto...wife is one of them..mom is also


----------



## UFM82 (Apr 6, 2004)

The core issue that I continue to have that will never go away is that this is a right provided for in the 2nd. The sole purpose for the amendment was to arm the citizens against an out of control government. I get real tired of the hunting/collecting/target shooting arguments. None of that is relevant to the true reason for the amendment. And for those who think "it could never happen here" need only look at the host of other nations that are killing their own people and the lawlessness of our own Commander-in-Chief. Why would a government be fearful of a populace armed with single shot rifles or shotguns? If the authorities came for your guns, would you REALLY fight back or would you just grumble and put a post on social media somewhere? I'm betting on the latter. I don't know anyone truly willing to go down fighting for their guns and putting all the bravado aside, I doubt you do either.


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

Thankfully, don't have any family members on her or my side that are anti gun or pro ban. Shoot, mom is 78yrs old , sharp as a tack and has her CCL. Just too many family members on both sides in law enforcement that have witnessed 1st hand what sick people are capable of. The fact that more and more attacks of violence , especially home invasions are being carried out by multiple armed assailants I would not dream of handicapping anyone trying to defend themselves with whatever means they see fit.


----------



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

triton175 said:


> Can we at least get the terminology right; the ARs, and similar weapons that are currently available to the civilian population are "modern sporting rifles". Assault weapons are not now, nor have they ever been, available to civilians. Assault weapons have fully automatic capability, not just semi-auto and are not available to civilians.


A great point! It comes down to the "terminology" and who is providing it! I can remember when the "original" Clinton gun ban was being discussed, and it was being suggested that my dear old Remington 1100 semi-auto 12 gauge might be considered an "assault weapon"! 



jray said:


> I don't understand the logic of pointing to a Supreme Court justice as an expert to support your argument when obviously a majority of his peers disagreed with him? Also as was stated earlier, in the California shooting if a "hunting" implement such as a Remington 870 would have been used the casualties and injuries would have increased exponentially. "Assault" weapons are designed for use against an armed opponent. That is why our armed forces and law enforcement use them. School, mall, church, and in general terroristic shootings are attacks against an unarmed populous not wearing tactical gear or fighting back. In these scenarios assault weapons are less efficient. Not to mention, the most recent attack along with the the majority in history, utilized illegal weaponry. So yes great idea lets make it so that the law abiding citizens are less effective against armed assailants or maybe, tyrannical governments.


If I don't miss my guess, I'm thinking that Judge Scalia was agreed with by the majority of his peers, since the DC gun ban was overturned! Hard to overturn a law with a minority! 



UFM82 said:


> The core issue that I continue to have that will never go away is that this is a right provided for in the 2nd. The sole purpose for the amendment was to arm the citizens against an out of control government. I get real tired of the hunting/collecting/target shooting arguments. None of that is relevant to the true reason for the amendment. And for those who think "it could never happen here" need only look at the host of other nations that are killing their own people and the lawlessness of our own Commander-in-Chief. Why would a government be fearful of a populace armed with single shot rifles or shotguns? If the authorities came for your guns, would you REALLY fight back or would you just grumble and put a post on social media somewhere? I'm betting on the latter. I don't know anyone truly willing to go down fighting for their guns and putting all the bravado aside, I doubt you do either.


So true! The 2nd Amendment was NOT enacted so we could hunt! It was so we could defend ourselves against an over weaning government. Of course, the Founders could not anticipate the advances in technology that have taken place. 

And it's a common tactic of the "lefties" to focus on the phrase "a well regulated militia", while simultaneously ignoring the phrase "the right of THE PEOPLE" to keep and bear arms. It's the same tactic they use in religious arguments. They like to quote "The congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", while ignoring "nor restrict the free expression thereof". Where the left is concerned, it seems that "the people" lose out to the government time and time again!


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

UFM82 said:


> The core issue that I continue to have that will never go away is that this is a right provided for in the 2nd. The sole purpose for the amendment was to arm the citizens against an out of control government. I get real tired of the hunting/collecting/target shooting arguments. None of that is relevant to the true reason for the amendment. And for those who think "it could never happen here" need only look at the host of other nations that are killing their own people and the lawlessness of our own Commander-in-Chief. Why would a government be fearful of a populace armed with single shot rifles or shotguns? If the authorities came for your guns, would you REALLY fight back or would you just grumble and put a post on social media somewhere? I'm betting on the latter. I don't know anyone truly willing to go down fighting for their guns and putting all the bravado aside, I doubt you do either.


LOL If that were the case why can't we own fully automatic weapons , antiaircraft missals, flame throwers, rocket launchers etc. After all how are we going to protect ourselves against an out of control government that has all these things lol No where in the second amendment does it come close to saying the purpose is to arm the citizens against their own government.


----------



## AtticaFish (Nov 23, 2008)

fishingful said:


> Had the exact issue with some family members.............





Saugeye Tom said:


> Ditto...wife is one of them..mom is also


I have had similar conversations with my family as well. I may be the level headed antagonist to the general pro-gun ideal though. The discussion came up shortly after the Colorado theater and there was a populous push to limit the sale of clips holding over a certain number of rounds. Family member claimed he was going to go out and buy all the big clips he could find. I rolled my eyes quite dramatically and said he was a dumb-a. I do own a few small caliber hunting rifles and a 20ga shotgun. The rifles are semi auto and hold 8 or 10 rounds, not even sure. Shotgun is pump and hold 5 total. His ENTIRE BELIEF for owning these bigger clips was based on the fact that he uses guns to hunt and the 2nd amendment allowed him to. My question was.... how many consecutive rounds do you need to shoot a squirrel, or rabbit, or deer? After that first or second shot, you are just throwing lead in desperation. I walked away shortly after because i know that i could never even come close to changing his mind. Members here have as much chance of 'changing' each others mind as i............ with my own brother.

Think about this for a second. The terrorist does not go out into rural Ohio and pull a gun at a football game on Friday night. That individual would NOT likely make it back to their car alive. They hit soft targets and those events cause high publicity. At a soft target in suburb or city area, it doesn't matter if you have a fully automatic AR or a semi-auto .22 with a 10 round clip............ everyone is pretty much up a creek until the law shows up.

My thought is that we have very very little control of where the gun issue leads us. Big wigs in the Gov. are going to make their decisions with lobby money (not earworms from us) and we will be allowed to follow their rules. That lobby money is dispersed 99% of the time by knee jerk reactions from what is covered in the media so the people spending the money LOOK GOOD! I don't care what party is in charge, they can't control the media so they can't control the money. It is a never ending loop. It will break down and cause more civil unrest if they attempt to ban guns than if they allow them. Guns will never be banned in the US or there is a risk of an honest to god civil war. Guns will be allowed, but there may be some limitations. I can personally live with that.


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

fastwater said:


> Thankfully, don't have any family members on her or my side that are anti gun or pro ban. Shoot, mom is 78yrs old , sharp as a tack and has her CCL. Just too many family members on both sides in law enforcement that have witnessed 1st hand what sick people are capable of. The fact that more and more attacks of violence , especially home invasions are being carried out by multiple armed assailants I would not dream of handicapping anyone trying to defend themselves with whatever means they see fit.


why would you want to shoot your 78 yr old mom, LOL.
sherman


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

AtticaFish said:


> I have had similar conversations with my family as well. I may be the level headed antagonist to the general pro-gun ideal though. The discussion came up shortly after the Colorado theater and there was a populous push to limit the sale of clips holding over a certain number of rounds. Family member claimed he was going to go out and buy all the big clips he could find. I rolled my eyes quite dramatically and said he was a dumb-a. I do own a few small caliber hunting rifles and a 20ga shotgun. The rifles are semi auto and hold 8 or 10 rounds, not even sure. Shotgun is pump and hold 5 total. His ENTIRE BELIEF for owning these bigger clips was based on the fact that he uses guns to hunt and the 2nd amendment allowed him to. My question was.... how many consecutive rounds do you need to shoot a squirrel, or rabbit, or deer? After that first or second shot, you are just throwing lead in desperation. I walked away shortly after because i know that i could never even come close to changing his mind. Members here have as much chance of 'changing' each others mind as i............ with my own brother.
> 
> Think about this for a second. The terrorist does not go out into rural Ohio and pull a gun at a football game on Friday night. That individual would NOT likely make it back to their car alive. They hit soft targets and those events cause high publicity. At a soft target in suburb or city area, it doesn't matter if you have a fully automatic AR or a semi-auto .22 with a 10 round clip............ everyone is pretty much up a creek until the law shows up.
> 
> My thought is that we have very very little control of where the gun issue leads us. Big wigs in the Gov. are going to make their decisions with lobby money (not earworms from us) and we will be allowed to follow their rules. That lobby money is dispersed 99% of the time by knee jerk reactions from what is covered in the media so the people spending the money LOOK GOOD! I don't care what party is in charge, they can't control the media so they can't control the money. It is a never ending loop. It will break down and cause more civil unrest if they attempt to ban guns than if they allow them. Guns will never be banned in the US or there is a risk of an honest to god civil war. Guns will be allowed, but there may be some limitations. I can personally live with that.


Well...if it was a high school game it would be a soft target because all of us legal ccw guys won't have our guns on the property. As far as hunting..the law says 3 shells ...deer ducks and turky. Mags over 10?????I use them for target and personal defense. Hate the reloading process in both situations...


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

sherman51 said:


> why would you want to shoot your 78 yr old mom, LOL.
> sherman


Lol! I guess,like the misinterpretation of Justice Scalia's quotes, what I posted could have been misinterpreted as well. Ha! 
You still in Fla.?


----------



## glasseyes (Jan 28, 2012)

I think it is sad the world is in such shape it is. Someone mentioned Chicago and to see the daily killings there is just crazy. It may be just this simple as has been said so many times, the laws are made for honest people and the criminals, sick and evil just do not care
. There are many ideas to fix the problem but only one in my mind would help, bring God back into our society, the schools and the family. No it will put an end to all the evil but it would do a better job then gun laws. Our government and court system has gone so far away from God that there is bound to be more evil in this country then ever before. The morals of this society has gone down the tubes in so many ways and now life itself to so many means nothing at all.


----------



## Saugernut (Apr 22, 2013)

robertj298 said:


> LOL If that were the case why can't we own fully automatic weapons , antiaircraft missals, flame throwers, rocket launchers etc. After all how are we going to protect ourselves against an out of control government that has all these things lol No where in the second amendment does it come close to saying the purpose is to arm the citizens against their own government.


Man you really don't understand the constitution do you, or you just pick the parts and interpret them to fit your agenda. I'd go with the latter.


----------



## ostbucks98 (Apr 14, 2004)

Chicago,nyc, washington.....its not about guns,its about culture.


----------



## streamstalker (Jul 8, 2005)

In it's entirety: _"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."_


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

streamstalker said:


> In it's entirety: _"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."_


"Regulated" To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

robertj298 said:


> "Regulated" To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.


SHALL NOR BE INFRINGED


----------



## Spike Dog (Mar 13, 2015)

Robertj298 - I don't think that a website dedicated to hunting and fishing is the best place to preach your gun control nonsense.

Maybe you would have better luck on Huffington post...


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

Spike Dog said:


> Robertj298 - I don't think that a website dedicated to hunting and fishing is the best place to preach your gun control nonsense.
> 
> Maybe you would have better luck on Huffington post...


YES he would!!!


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

Spike Dog said:


> Robertj298 - I don't think that a website dedicated to hunting and fishing is the best place to preach your gun control nonsense.
> 
> Maybe you would have better luck on Huffington post...


I don't think a hunting and fishing website is a place to preach politics. I didn't start this thread.


----------



## Stars-n-Stripers (Nov 15, 2007)

Spike Dog said:


> Robertj298 - I don't think that a website dedicated to hunting and fishing is the best place to preach your gun control nonsense.
> 
> Maybe you would have better luck on Huffington post...


I think the Mods are on Christmas break, when "the lawlessness of our Commander in Chief" is sadly referenced by UFM, I'm sure this will be heading towards a lockdown.


----------



## boatnut (Nov 22, 2006)

Why are* fully-automatic* AR-15s with 30-round magazines and hollow-point bullets called *‘personal defense weapons'* when the Department of Homeland Security purchases them, but* semi-auto AR-15s are 'assault rifles'* in the hands of citizens?

The Department of Homeland Security filed a purchase bid this past June titled “Personal Defense Weapons Solicitation”. It is combined bid for 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition and *“select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense.”*


----------



## Kylesfishin (Jun 11, 2013)

triton175 said:


> Can we at least get the terminology right; the ARs, and similar weapons that are currently available to the civilian population are "modern sporting rifles". Assault weapons are not now, nor have they ever been, available to civilians. Assault weapons have fully automatic capability, not just semi-auto and are not available to civilians.


That's not really true. Prior to 1934, machine guns were not regulated any differently than any other firearm.

Currently, in most states at least, all a "civilian" has to do is pay a $200 tax, fill out an application, submit photographs and passport photo, get chief law enforcement official to sign the app. (which in several states, is now "Shall Sign"), wait a few months, and any "civilian" can own a full-auto, suppressor, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, etc.


----------



## AtticaFish (Nov 23, 2008)

There are many hunters who accept 'reasonable' gun control laws. Just the same as there are anglers who fully accept the rule of only allowing 2 rods to fish at a time. Not a perfect cross reference, but it does show a point. REASONABLE laws to control things should have no bearing on weather you hunt or fish. True sportsman tend to obey the law so they can continue to do what they love. Everyone is allowed an opinion, the problem comes when we stick people in political corners just because of a single opinion.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

AtticaFish said:


> There are many hunters who accept 'reasonable' gun control laws. Just the same as there are anglers who fully accept the rule of only allowing 2 rods to fish at a time. Not a perfect cross reference, but it does show a point. REASONABLE laws to control things should have no bearing on weather you hunt or fish. True sportsman tend to obey the law so they can continue to do what they love. Everyone is allowed an opinion, the problem comes when we stick people in political corners just because of a single opinion.


Agreed. I don't remember this kind of outrage when the Brady Bill which was supported by Ronald Reagan was enacted.


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

glasseyes said:


> I think it is sad the world is in such shape it is. Someone mentioned Chicago and to see the daily killings there is just crazy. It may be just this simple as has been said so many times, the laws are made for honest people and the criminals, sick and evil just do not care
> . There are many ideas to fix the problem but only one in my mind would help, bring God back into our society, the schools and the family. No it will put an end to all the evil but it would do a better job then gun laws. Our government and court system has gone so far away from God that there is bound to be more evil in this country then ever before. The morals of this society has gone down the tubes in so many ways and now life itself to so many means nothing at all.


Never has a more true thing been posted on OGF.
Thanks glasseyes!


----------



## AtticaFish (Nov 23, 2008)

Robert - I think you still miss my point though. It does not matter WHO enacted/supported/wrote/wipedtheirbuttwith it if it is a _reasonable_ law. Using individuals to prove your point only pushes the party line discussion again instead of allowing an open debate.


----------



## Flannel_Carp (Apr 7, 2014)

glasseyes said:


> I think it is sad the world is in such shape it is. Someone mentioned Chicago and to see the daily killings there is just crazy. It may be just this simple as has been said so many times, the laws are made for honest people and the criminals, sick and evil just do not care
> . There are many ideas to fix the problem but only one in my mind would help, bring God back into our society, the schools and the family. No it will put an end to all the evil but it would do a better job then gun laws. Our government and court system has gone so far away from God that there is bound to be more evil in this country then ever before. The morals of this society has gone down the tubes in so many ways and now life itself to so many means nothing at all.


This is why we have freedom of, and from, religion.


----------



## Nightcrawler666 (Apr 17, 2014)

Flannel_Carp said:


> This is why we have freedom of, and from, religion.


Attempting to slide this in before lockdown...what on earth do you (glass eyes) think Isis and other RELIGIOUS extremists are using to "justify" murdering innocent people? 

What about the abortion clinic attack? 

It's not an answer man, it's part of the problem. 

However, due to our rights and liberties as American citizens, it is your liberty to believe what you believe.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

AtticaFish said:


> Robert - I think you still miss my point though. It does not matter WHO enacted/supported/wrote/wipedtheirbuttwith it if it is a _reasonable_ law. Using individuals to prove your point only pushes the party line discussion again instead of allowing an open debate.


That is where you are wrong. It shouldn't matter who enacted a law but it does. In 1994 Jimmy Carter ,Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford wrote to The House of Representatives supporting the ban of semi automatic assault guns. Polls showed that 77% of Americans supported the ban.


----------



## AtticaFish (Nov 23, 2008)

.....to each his own. Happy Holidays!


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

I don't think anyone is going to change anyone's opinion on this subject so I'll just one question. 14 people were killed in the San Bernadio shooting.What if the shooters hadn't obtained the assault style semi automatic weapons and they just used handguns and were only able to kill 13 instead of 14? Is that one life worth not being able to purchase this type of weapon? If not how many lives are worth it?


----------



## Fishtracker1 (Mar 29, 2009)

Please note, this is my first comment to all that has been stated on this subject. This was meant as a "HeadsUp" only, not to "preach politics". I have not repeatedly tried to push my opinion or philosophy as have a few. I started paying attention when Pres. Kennedy was assasinated and have seen alot since. Please take some time to watch "Molon Labe" which is a factual warning regarding this topic. These political scholars, historians and constitutional experts all agree that the 2nd Amendment was carefully worded, nothing extra or exempted by our founding fathers. They explained how it is necessary to the security of a free state, not to be infringed upon by a federal bureaucracy which was their main concern at the time. I don't do justice to what is explained in the documentary. I do know this, there are currently more that enough laws on the books to protect the people in our country. As this link from "Buckey Firearms Association" clearly reveals, judges simply choose not to enforce them! 

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/woma...n-used-shoot-cop-sentenced-one-year-probation

Happy New Year to All, and May God continue to Bless America!


----------



## boatnut (Nov 22, 2006)

robertj298 said:


> I don't think anyone is going to change anyone's opinion on this subject so I'll just one question. 14 people were killed in the San Bernadio shooting.What if the shooters hadn't obtained the assault style semi automatic weapons and they just used handguns and were only able to kill 13 instead of 14? Is that one life worth not being able to purchase this type of weapon? If not how many lives are worth it?


are you really that obtuse?? they could of walked in with a semi auto pistol in each hand with legal ten round magazines and a couple of spares and done just as much damage.

Maybe if it wasn't a "gun free zone", then someone could of possibly stopped them at some point.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

boatnut said:


> are you really that obtuse?? they could of walked in with a semi auto pistol in each hand with legal ten round magazines and a couple of spares and done just as much damage.
> 
> Maybe if it wasn't a "gun free zone", then someone could of possibly stopped them at some point.


Ar you really that obtuse to believe someone with 2 semi auto pistols could do as much damage as someone with an AR15 rifle?


----------



## glasseyes (Jan 28, 2012)

Nightcrawler666 said:


> Attempting to slide this in before lockdown...what on earth do you (glass eyes) think Isis and other RELIGIOUS extremists are using to "justify" murdering innocent people?
> 
> What about the abortion clinic attack?
> 
> ...


Only way to answer this is to say that the Isis and extremist Muslim groups are using a religion for evil and terror. The God I speak of is made of love and compassion, I know this won't go far here and for the record I own a Ar15, actually bought the first one owned in our county over forty years ago. My point is that in this country these United States if you do your research on the constitution we were founded on Christian principles and our founding fathers professed to run this country by Gods guidance, it's plastered all over our capital. Did you know that it was our early government that bought and paid for the Holy bible to supply the schools.


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

robertj298 said:


> I don't think anyone is going to change anyone's opinion on this subject so I'll just one question. 14 people were killed in the San Bernadio shooting.What if the shooters hadn't obtained the assault style semi automatic weapons and they just used handguns and were only able to kill 13 instead of 14? Is that one life worth not being able to purchase this type of weapon? If not how many lives are worth it?


Playing the 'what if' game...


...What if they couldn't get the semi auto rifles and used a pipe bomb killing 40-50 people and injuring many more?

What if they used shotguns with buckshot and shot into a crowd killing 16?

What if they used 3-4 Shields holding 28 or 32 rds. killing 17-18?

Hey..what if they used a combination of shotguns and Shields killing 20+

Again, Your gun ban logic makes no sense.

Happy New Years to all.


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

I just hope that none of my near neighbors are using penetrating firepower like that for home protection. Some of that stuff can go through multiple walls.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

FOSR said:


> I just hope that none of my near neighbors are using penetrating firepower like that for home protection. Some of that stuff can go through multiple walls.


We can't have any restrictions on that, that would be against the second amendment.


----------



## supercanoe (Jun 12, 2006)

robertj298 said:


> I don't think anyone is going to change anyone's opinion on this subject so I'll just one question. 14 people were killed in the San Bernadio shooting.What if the shooters hadn't obtained the assault style semi automatic weapons and they just used handguns and were only able to kill 13 instead of 14? Is that one life worth not being able to purchase this type of weapon? If not how many lives are worth it?


The guns were obtained illegally in a state with strict gun control laws. Obviously Strict gun control laws do not prevent these types of terrorist attacks. So what is your point?


----------



## cincinnati (May 24, 2004)

robertj298 said:


> We can't have any restrictions on that, that would be against the second amendment.


"The philosophy of gun control: Teenagers are roaring through town at 90MPH, where the speed limit is 25. Your solution is to lower the speed limit to 20."


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

supercanoe said:


> The guns were obtained illegally in a state with strict gun control laws. Obviously Strict gun control laws do not prevent these types of terrorist attacks. So what is your point?


Wrong. All the guns were obtained legally.


----------



## supercanoe (Jun 12, 2006)

robertj298 said:


> Ar you really that obtuse to believe someone with 2 semi auto pistols could do as much damage as someone with an AR15 rifle?


In close quarters on a soft target, absolutely.


----------



## supercanoe (Jun 12, 2006)

robertj298 said:


> Wrong. All the guns were obtained legally.


Straw purchases are legal now?


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

I'm still stuck on the 'what if' game...

What if we had built a wall and closed our borders after 9/11, developed a vetting system for people coming into the U.S. that actually works? Maybe the San Bernadino shooters would have never been in this country and all 14 people would still be alive.

No....we will keep letting people come across our border, planning and executing terroristic crimes then make new laws that don't work that further restricts our freedoms. While the killings continue, the government can continue with its mind control convincing us we are safe and we can all sit back and feel all fuzzy and warm inside. After all the new bans and laws have proven so effective in the past.


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

OK, now I'm sounding old - I remember being a little kid at the amusement park next to the Columbus Zoo, maybe 1968 or so. They had one of those shooting galleries where the metal rabbits roll by on a conveyor and you try to plink down as many as you can. The guns were little .22s on tethers but they had live rounds, probably the least powerful round short of blanks.

The gamekeeper told us kids, these are real guns and don't point them into the crowd walking by. We took him seriously and we didn't screw around. 

I think that experience established my interest in guns. I like being able to direct a projectile to a target. However, I don't own any firearm.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

fastwater said:


> I'm still stuck on the 'what if' game...
> 
> What if we had built a wall and closed our borders after 9/11, developed a vetting system for people coming into the U.S. that actually works? Maybe the San Bernadino shooters would have never been in this country and all 14 people would still be alive.
> 
> No....we will keep letting people come across our border, planning and executing terroristic crimes then make new laws that don't work that further restricts our freedoms. While the killings continue, the government can continue with its mind control convincing us we are safe and we can all sit back and feel all fuzzy and warm inside. After all the new bans and laws have proven so effective in the past.


What if we just close our borders to everyone and live the rest of our days in fear? We could all hide from people that aren't like us. You are 1,000 times more likely to be shot by an American citizen than a terrorist.


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

robertj298 said:


> What if we just close our borders to everyone and live the rest of our days in fear? We could all hide from people that aren't like us. You are 1,000 times more likely to be shot by an American citizen than a terrorist.


Tell that to the families of those murdered in San Bernadino. Or maybe to the families of all those killed on 9/11. There are plenty more instances but you get the point. 
On second thought....never mind.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

If you allow terrorists to terrorize you to the point that you have to change your values and the way you live, the terrorists win. As far as 9/11, that could have been avoided if our government would have paid attention to all the advance warnings from multiple intelligence agencies including the CIA.


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

robertj298 said:


> *If you allow terrorists to terrorize you to the point that you have to change your values and the way you live, the terrorists win.* As far as 9/11, that could have been avoided if our government would have paid attention to all the advance warnings from multiple intelligence agencies including the CIA.


Hmmm...you should try applying the same philosophy to criminals. Thus, the very reason there is no excuse for a gun ban that will do nothing but let the criminals win and change the values and the way the law abiding, civilized society lives.


----------



## ducman491 (Oct 31, 2011)

fastwater said:


> Hmmm...you should try applying the same philosophy to criminals. Thus, the very reason there is no excuse for a gun ban that will do nothing but let the criminals win and change the values and the way the law abiding, civilized society lives.



Thank you I was just going to post this very thought.


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

robertj298 said:


> If you allow terrorists to terrorize you to the point that you have to change your values and the way you live, the terrorists win. As far as 9/11, that could have been avoided if our government would have paid attention to all the advance warnings from multiple intelligence agencies including the CIA.


MAYBE WE SHOULD BAN JETS?...


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

fastwater said:


> Hmmm...you should try applying the same philosophy to criminals. Thus, the very reason there is no excuse for a gun ban that will do nothing but let the criminals win and change the values and the way the law abiding, civilized society lives.


AMEN


----------



## ostbucks98 (Apr 14, 2004)

Regardless of what side of this debate your on, neither argument is "working"

Its so messy there isnt any real answer.


----------



## walcat (Apr 11, 2004)

MAYBE WE SHOULD BAN JETS?...

That would really piss Joe Namath off !!!!!!!!


----------



## Tbomb55 (Nov 27, 2008)

robertj298 said:


> So what your saying is we all need unrestricted access to assault weapons?


Don't bother man. These same people think the Feds are set to invade Texas.


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

fastwater said:


> Lol! I guess,like the misinterpretation of Justice Scalia's quotes, what I posted could have been misinterpreted as well. Ha!
> You still in Fla.?


yea im back from florida. I just went down to pick up a car I bought off ebay.

but i'll be going back the middle of jan for my ice fishing trip, LOL. I go down and visit my sister and brother n law and that gives me a chance to fish with my brother n law. were going around the 16th of july and if my wife will let me we'll stay until the end of march.

and I wont be using any assault weapons on this trip. but if I could afford the ammo I would love to own a fully automatic rifle to use here at home on the range. something most people don't understand about using one on full auto is there not very accurate. I used the m-16 on full auto in the marine corps and it would climb up and off the target on full auto but was very accurate on semi auto. I would much rater have a 12 ga shotgun with the extended magazine with 00 buckshot in close quarters than any assault weapon myself.
sherman


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

robertj298 said:


> So what your saying is we all need unrestricted access to assault weapons?


NO not everybody should have unrestricted access but law abiding citizens should have the right to own them if they have been checked out and are of sound mind and not a criminal or on some watch list.

as a matter of fact I was turned down for a hand gun carry permit here in Indiana just because I was honest on my application that I have ptsd and am depressed.
sherman


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

Saugeye Tom said:


> MAYBE WE SHOULD BAN JETS?...


...or cars...or cell phones(have to prepare for when guns are outlawed and people start using cell phones to detonate bombs as they are currently doing in other countries)...might want to include propane tanks as well...the list can go on forever.


----------



## lonewolf (Mar 4, 2010)

I'm going to start by saying a little bit of common sense goes a long way. And leave you with something my father always said about background checks. " a person is not a serial killer tell they get caught"


----------



## Saugernut (Apr 22, 2013)

"Oh no the sky is falling", come on people, this will not pass, nothing has changed, the ones that could pass it know it would end their career. The one thing it will do is continue to produce record gun sales and I bet if you really looked hard enough, somewhere along the line you would find ties to the powers at are in and gun stocks.


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

lonewolf said:


> I'm going to start by saying a little bit of common sense goes a long way. And leave you with something my father always said about background checks. " a person is not a serial killer tell they get caught"


Agree 100%. A little common sense does go a long way.



But it seems that in today's society 'common sense' has been replaced by 'political correctness' that is castrating our country.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

fastwater said:


> Agree 100%.
> 
> But it seems that in today's society 'common sense' has been replaced by 'political correctness' that is castrating our country.


Didn't know Donald Trump was a member here lol


----------



## fishing pole (May 2, 2004)

Sixth Commandment "Thou shall not kill" How much clearer can it be?????


----------



## boatnut (Nov 22, 2006)

.


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

Hehehe!


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

You have to remember when the second amendment was put in the constitution the population in the U.S. was 3 million . Today it is 300 million. Even Thomas Jefferson believed the constitution should be rewritten every 20 years because he thought the dead should not rule the living.


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

robertj298 said:


> You have to remember when the second amendment was put in the constitution the population in the U.S. was 3 million . Today it is 300 million. Even Thomas Jefferson believed the constitution should be rewritten every 20 years because he thought the dead should not rule the living.


Uh huh. Ok. You knew ol tom....


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

Saugeye Tom said:


> Uh huh. Ok. You knew ol tom....





Saugeye Tom said:


> Uh huh. Ok. You knew ol tom....


My bill of rights.....


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

Saugeye Tom said:


> My bill of rights.....


Careful Tom.
He'll be referring to you as George Patton. Ha!


----------



## jray (Jan 20, 2006)

robertj298 said:


> You have to remember when the second amendment was put in the constitution the population in the U.S. was 3 million . Today it is 300 million. Even Thomas Jefferson believed the constitution should be rewritten every 20 years because he thought the dead should not rule the living.


Exactly he and the other founders also believed this country would experience civil wars and Revolution every 20 years or so like every nation known to them at the time had. Which is why they believed in an armed populous to overthrow an oppressive government if need be. Neither is an outcome I would hope for


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

boatnut said:


> .
> View attachment 199809


I love this one boatnut. I had to laugh out loud for real.


----------



## fishing pole (May 2, 2004)

If your claiming Jefferson wrote it you are mistaken. Jefferson was in France at the time serving as an ambassador of the US.

Speaking of changing the constitution,we can, through the amendment process and through a constitutional convention

As far as the constitution it governs for the long-term, not bending to people desires to enslave the rich by raising taxes or creating rights (food stamps, unemployment, housing...etc) That is way to destruction and has repeated itself in Greece, Rome and today's Europe. The framers knew what they were doing and Madison and Hamilton would not have stood for a generational re-write because they understood human nature and how it relates to government. Those in the majority would rewrite it for their own political gain!!


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

sherman51 said:


> I love this one boatnut. I had to laugh out loud for real.


I did too sherman


----------



## laynhardwood (Dec 27, 2009)

sherman51 said:


> I love this one boatnut. I had to laugh out loud for real.


As did I


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

fastwater said:


> Careful Tom.
> He'll be referring to you as George Patton. Ha!


Lol...gotta get me one of those assult muskets


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

fishing pole said:


> If your claiming Jefferson wrote it you are mistaken. Jefferson was in France at the time serving as an ambassador of the US.
> 
> Speaking of changing the constitution,we can, through the amendment process and through a constitutional convention
> 
> As far as the constitution it governs for the long-term, not bending to people desires to enslave the rich by raising taxes or creating rights (food stamps, unemployment, housing...etc) That is way to destruction and has repeated itself in Greece, Rome and today's Europe. The framers knew what they were doing and Madison and Hamilton would not have stood for a generational re-write because they understood human nature and how it relates to government. Those in the majority would rewrite it for their own political gain!!


*Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.* It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396


----------



## laynhardwood (Dec 27, 2009)

If a terrorist, domestic or foreign, wants to carry out a cowardly act of killing defenseless people they will. A gun ban will change nothing, except make sure citizens can not defend themselves. Most of the crimes committed with guns are not obtained legally. The rifles used in California were originally obtained legally, then illegally sold to the terrorists. The seller is being held on terrorism charges. Guns don't kill people crazy people do. I have two hand guns loaded everyday and they have never decided to shoot anyone. The right to protect our freedom is at stake. I choose to not be a sitting duck and so should everyone else. Why would criminals think twice about killing and robbing people if they knew nobody had guns. Innocent people are the only ones the gun ban will affect.


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

Saugeye Tom said:


> Lol...gotta get me one of those assult muskets


Me too!
I think I have found a new winter project. Gonna take one of the old BP rifles and see if I can't turn it into an AR platform. I'm thinkin besides a suppressor, heat shield and being turned real evil by painting it flat black, rails,a laser, a light and possibly a grenade launcher are in order.


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

laynhardwood said:


> If a terrorist, domestic or foreign, wants to carry out a cowardly act of killing defenseless people they will. A gun ban will change nothing, except make sure citizens can not defend themselves. Most of the crimes committed with guns are not obtained legally. The rifles used in California were originally obtained legally, then illegally sold to the terrorists. The seller is being held on terrorism charges. Guns don't kill people crazy people do. I have two hand guns loaded everyday and they have never decided to shoot anyone. The right to protect our freedom is at stake. I choose to not be a sitting duck and so should everyone else. Why would criminals think twice about killing and robbing people if they knew nobody had guns. Innocent people are the only ones the gun ban will affect.


Welcome! You as well have just crossed into the 'Trump' category. Ha! Or wait, maybe the 'Patton' camp.
We'll have to wait and see where Robert places you.


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

I was just noticing..no one is liking RJ'S POSTS.......


----------



## scioto_alex (Dec 30, 2015)

> and possibly a grenade launcher


Admit it, all of us would love to goof around with a grenade launcher.


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

scioto_alex said:


> Admit it, all of us would love to goof around with a grenade launcher.


Yep!

But with our current laws, the closest I can get is a potato gun. Ha!
I did once build a potato gun on an AR platform. Complete with a flash suppressor and an Eveready flashlight taped to the bbl. for night maneuvers on raccoons.
I left it white though. Didn't want to paint it that 'evil' black. It would then want to start doing bad things on its own.


----------



## jrose (Jul 16, 2012)

UFM82 said:


> The core issue that I continue to have that will never go away is that this is a right provided for in the 2nd. The sole purpose for the amendment was to arm the citizens against an out of control government. I get real tired of the hunting/collecting/target shooting arguments. None of that is relevant to the true reason for the amendment. And for those who think "it could never happen here" need only look at the host of other nations that are killing their own people and the lawlessness of our own Commander-in-Chief. Why would a government be fearful of a populace armed with single shot rifles or shotguns? If the authorities came for your guns, would you REALLY fight back or would you just grumble and put a post on social media somewhere? I'm betting on the latter. I don't know anyone truly willing to go down fighting for their guns and putting all the bravado aside, I doubt you do either.


No "Government Official" will ever take my guns! Now you know one!


----------



## fishing pole (May 2, 2004)

robertj298 said:


> *Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.* It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396



That was a writing of TJ - not in the constitution

*Q. Was Thomas Jefferson a member of the Constitutional Convention?*
A. No. Jefferson was American Minister to France at the time of the Constitutional Convention

Source;
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_q_and_a.html


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

Meanwhile...back at the ranch...Texans are watching the clock today for the stroke of midnight tonight as Texas will then become a legal 'open carry' state.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

fishing pole said:


> That was a writing of TJ - not in the constitution
> 
> *Q. Was Thomas Jefferson a member of the Constitutional Convention?*
> A. No. Jefferson was American Minister to France at the time of the Constitutional Convention
> ...


No where did I say Jefferson was a member of the Constitutional Convention. He was a founding father.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

jrose said:


> No "Government Official" will ever take my guns! Now you know one!


LOL Everyone put on your tin foil hats, the guberment is gonna come after your guns.


----------



## scioto_alex (Dec 30, 2015)

Put "shrimp cannon" into youtube.


----------



## jrose (Jul 16, 2012)

robertj298 said:


> LOL Everyone put on your tin foil hats, the guberment is gonna come after your guns.


Spoken like a true sheep!


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

jrose said:


> Spoken like a true sheep!





jrose said:


> Spoken like a true sheep!












They ain't gonna get my guns lol


----------



## fishing pole (May 2, 2004)

robertj298 said:


> No where did I say Jefferson was a member of the Constitutional Convention. He was a founding father.


Got ya. Had to go back and read it again. 

Given the way things go now it would probably take twenty years to hammer out a constitution or we could just sign it and read it later. That of course depends on what the meaning of the word "is" - is.


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

scioto_alex said:


> Admit it, all of us would love to goof around with a grenade launcher.


M203.in the us army.....so much fun...Kicks like a 10 gage


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

fishing pole said:


> Got ya. Had to go back and read it again.
> 
> Given the way things go now it would probably take twenty years to hammer out a constitution or we could just sign it and read it later. That of course depends on what the meaning of the word "is" - is.


A lot of the principles still stand true today but there is no way our forefathers could imagine this country as big and as populous with all the technology as it is today. In a lot of ways it is a shame and in my opinion this world is overpopulated.


----------



## boatnut (Nov 22, 2006)

robertj298 said:


> A lot of the principles still stand true today but there is no way our forefathers could imagine this country as big and as populous with all the technology as it is today. In a lot of ways it is a shame and in my opinion this world is overpopulated.


So not only do you want more gun control and the Constitution re-written, you want to restrict our rights to procreate? Wow.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

boatnut said:


> So not only do you want more gun control and the Constitution re-written, you want to restrict our rights to procreate? Wow.


 Wow your comprehension is pretty sad.


----------



## jrose (Jul 16, 2012)

robertj298 said:


> Wow your comprehension is pretty sad.


Try this, it may help!


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

jrose said:


> Try this, it may help!


Lol Mr. Ain't nobody gonna take my guns lol


----------



## Spike Dog (Mar 13, 2015)

Our forefathers were incredibly wise beyond their years. They instituted a system of government that has stood the test of time, and laid the groundwork for the greatest nation on earth. 
If you choose to find fault with the second amendment that is your right to do so, but please don't insult us and them, by insinuating that we need to rewrite the constitution.


----------



## ODNR3723 (Apr 12, 2007)

Rifles of all types make up less of the total deaths than shotguns. Handguns are number one. This was all found on the FBI website for homicides in 2014. Seems to me if we were going to ban something to save lives we would go after handguns and shotguns. Guess that wouldn't fit the agenda.


----------



## fishing pole (May 2, 2004)

The whole population of the earth can fit in Texas
Given an average four person family, every family would have a 66' x 66' plot of land, which would comfortably provide a single family home and yard -- and all of them fit on a landmass the size of Texas. Admittedly, it'd basically be one massive subdivision, but Texas is a tiny portion of the inhabitable Earth.


----------



## Ruminator (Apr 6, 2004)

fishing pole said:


> Sixth Commandment "Thou shall not kill" How much clearer can it be?????


Actually the scripture verse is correctly translated, and means: Thou shalt not commit _murder_.
Having to kill your fellow man is tragic in any situation, but some will make that decision for you so that you must take up arms against them, or you and your loved ones become victimized by them. 
This is not the same thing as _murder_.


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

ODNR3723 said:


> Rifles of all types make up less of the total deaths than shotguns. Handguns are number one. This was all found on the FBI website for homicides in 2014. Seems to me if we were going to ban something to save lives we would go after handguns and shotguns. Guess that wouldn't fit the agenda.


Yep!
...and vehicles accidents(cars,truck,motorcycles) kill more people here in the US every year then all guns related deaths put together.
We need a ban on vehicles.
More alcohol related deaths also. Let's ban alcohol...oh wait, that was already done once...and worked out extremely well didn't it. The elite,rich and thugs still had their booze while the average 'joe' didn't.

Same with the 'best' illegal dope. Research a little history on the 'so called' elite, politicians,Hollywood and cocaine. They were doing cocaine when the most of us didn't have the $ to do it cause we couldn't afford it. But it was illegal...banned if you will. They just had the means and clout to get it.

And then we have climate change and all the 'elite' proponents spewing their hypocritical preaching about green house emissions, the ozone and such. Won't get into a big rant about that, but will suffice it to say the jets they board to go to all these climate change conventions, the making of their movies, concerts, political events,etc. not to mention their 40,000-50,000 sq. ft. homes they visit every so often when they're not jetting all over the world, uses more fuel and energy in a year then the average joe does in a lifetime.
But remember 'average joe' , as preached to you by these hypocrites, you shouldn't burn wood or coal in the winter to help heat your house cause of the emissions. And by the way, these gas guzzling trucks you use to pull your boats ....gotta go.

Same goes for these so called gun bans that have been in the past and this one as well. You can bet if the elite, politicians or the Hollywood crowd feels the need to have their body guards armed with a weapon/magazine combo that happens to be on this current list, they'll have them. Simply cause they have the connections to do so.

Full auto weapons currently being illegal was brought up earlier in this thread. As our gun laws stand right now, most can't afford the means to legally have a full auto if they wanted one. But only a fool would believe that many of the elite are not guarded by body guards carrying full auto weapons. Or at least the dreaded evil AR platform weapons with large capacity mags. Why? Cause again, they have the means to be able to do so. They feel their lives and the lives of their families are worth the price to pay for the added security.
News flash....their lives, nor the lives of their loved ones means no more to them as mine do to me. And I can't afford a body guard to escort me where I'm going. Nor can I afford multiple body guards to escort my G-children to and from school.
But yet these same hypocrits with their heavily armed body guards, living in their armed, gated communities, hopping on theirs private jets and living in their fabulous estates want to put limits on how I live my day to day life. Yea...okay!

Hey...is it still 'politically correct' to say "practice what you preach?


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

Ruminator said:


> Actually the scripture verse is correctly translated, and means: Thou shalt not commit _murder_.
> Having to kill your fellow man is tragic in any situation, but some will make that decision for you so that you must take up arms against them, or you and your loved ones become victimized by them.
> This is not the same thing as _murder_.


You are correct Ruminator and Thank you for correcting that verse.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

Spike Dog said:


> Our forefathers were incredibly wise beyond their years. They instituted a system of government that has stood the test of time, and laid the groundwork for the greatest nation on earth.
> If you choose to find fault with the second amendment that is your right to do so, but please don't insult us and them, by insinuating that we need to rewrite the constitution.


So your saying Thomas Jefferson insults you?


----------



## Carver (Jan 20, 2010)

I think this gun thing all started when that guy said, " you'll shoot your eye out".

Happy New Year


----------



## chaunc (Apr 11, 2004)

Okay. I took an hour to catch up on this thread because I missed it in the beginning. I see everyone's points in their beliefs on this issue and I greatly respect them all, but this thread has run its course. Wishing everyone a happy and prosperous new year.


----------

