New shooting. Can anyone defend owning assault weapons?

Originally Posted by Constantine
You know my views about guns. I am wondering if anyone here can defend the idea of citizens being about to buy and possess assault rifles in light of the latest in an unending string of tragedies involving firearms?

I think everyone is missing the point here. I can just as easily shoot off as many rounds with a Glock 45 with a 32 round MAGAZINE than with an AR-15. Semi-Auto means one bullet per trigger pull. Get that through your thick skulls!

Originally Posted by Nt_loader

Guns are tools, they can be used in a number of different ways. I choose to use a gun as a tool of protection and a car as a tool for transportation.

Similarly, I can chose to get drunk and plow down innocent people crossing the street, or I can walk into walmart with gasoline and light the whole place on fire, I can launch bricks from the overpass at cars, I can flush babies down the toilet, I can hit my neighbor in the head with a hammer, I can choke a new born with my hands, do we really need to go on?

If I concede to this ridiculous train of thought, then would you be open to having all gun owners go through a gun ownership class to get a license, register and insure all of their guns with the state, be subject to semi-annual inspection of their guns to make sure they are safe as well as going through the process of having to renew their gun ownership license every few years?

Afterall, the tool known as car requires this much...

Originally Posted by Nt_loader

I think everyone is missing the point here. I can just as easily shoot off as many rounds with a Glock 45 with a 32 round MAGAZINE than an AR-15. Semi-Auto means one bullet per trigger pull. Get that through your thick skulls!

Than we agree! Limit the capacity of all magazines, rifle and pistol. Thank you!

Originally Posted by oie77

If I concede to this ridiculous train of thought, then would you be open to having all gun owners go through a gun ownership class to get a license, register and insure all of their guns with the state, be subject to semi-annual inspection of their guns to make sure they are safe as well as going through the process of having to renew their gun ownership license every few years?

Afterall, the tool known as car requires this much...

Yes, definately and as a CHL holder I completed a class and shooting exam before purchasing a gun. To maintain my CHL I will need to renew it every 5 years. I'm completely on board with this.

Originally Posted by oie77

If I concede to this ridiculous train of thought, then would you be open to having all gun owners go through a gun ownership class to get a license, register and insure all of their guns with the state, be subject to semi-annual inspection of their guns to make sure they are safe as well as going through the process of having to renew their gun ownership license every few years?

Afterall, the tool known as car requires this much...

It's only ridiculous because you think it is. How about you go back to hugging your trees, and wailing and wringing your hands because some species of owl or fish might lose its home. You don't need a license for a long gun, only for a handgun or fully automatic weapon. For 26 years I had the honor of holding at my fingertips more destruction than has ever been unleashed on mankind. I did not abuse that trust. Why would I abuse the trust of owning a firearm? Don't allow the actions of a mentally deranged individual cloud your judgment (or lack thereof).

Originally Posted by oie77

Than we agree! Limit the capacity of all magazines, rifle and pistol. Thank you!

No not really, I can still carry as many magazines as I wish, not to mention as many guns as I can hold.

So this doesnt work

Originally Posted by oie77

Guys, please please stop comparing guns to cars. You cant really be serious. Its far more difficult to get a license to drive in most states than it is to get a gun. Cars are inspected every few years, registered, and drivers are tested as they get older. Not to mention that cars are designed to transport, and guns to kill.

The fact that this ridiculous analogy keeps coming up over and over, is a pretty clear indication that the argument against logical gun regulation is very very weak.

Not so much. Driving a car is a privilege, owning a firearm is a constitutional right. That's the difference.

Sent from my HTC Glacier using Bimmer App

Originally Posted by oie77

If I concede to this ridiculous train of thought, then would you be open to having all gun owners go through a gun ownership class to get a license, register and insure all of their guns with the state, be subject to semi-annual inspection of their guns to make sure they are safe as well as going through the process of having to renew their gun ownership license every few years?

Afterall, the tool known as car requires this much...

Now he'll tell you that toilets require no licenses and as such neither should guns. The point is simple. A gun is not a tool for protection. It's a tool to put bullets in people.

A car is made to move on a road. A toilet is designed to flush ****. Bricks are made to construct walls with and hammers primary purpose is to hit nails on the head. You wouldn't buy any of the above items if they couldn't perform its intended task. You won't buya gun if it can't put holes in people.

Originally Posted by 'busa

Now he'll tell you that toilets require no licenses and as such neither should guns. The point is simple. A gun is not a tool for protection. It's a tool to put bullets in people.

A car is made to move on a road. A toilet is designed to flush ****. Bricks are made to construct walls with and hammers primary purpose is to hit nails on the head. You wouldn't buy any of the above items if they couldn't perform its intended task. You won't buya gun if it can't put holes in people.

A gun is not a tool for protection. It's a tool to put bullets in people.

Its also a hunting tool, a target practice tool, a competiton tool, a collector item, etc.

A car can be a collectors item or a delivery truck but it's purpose is one and the same.

Originally Posted by 'busa

A car can be a collectors item or a delivery truck but it's purpose is one and the same.

I dont understand your argument, are you saying that a car cannot be used as a weapon to kill people because its purpose is for transportation?

Originally Posted by Stickbuilder

It's only ridiculous because you think it is. How about you go back to hugging your trees, and wailing and wringing your hands because some species of owl or fish might lose its home. You don't need a license for a long gun, only for a handgun or fully automatic weapon. For 26 years I had the honor of holding at my fingertips more destruction than has ever been unleashed on mankind. I did not abuse that trust. Why would I abuse the trust of owning a firearm? Don't allow the actions of a mentally deranged individual cloud your judgment (or lack thereof).

Not sure why youre getting so angry here bro. We're having a debate. Dont let your emotions cloud your judgment (or lack thereof).

Just for the record, I am a gun owner and served in the military. Its funny that in your (and most of the extreme right's) eyes, anybody that argues for sensible change to gun laws is a tree hugging hippie. Says a lot about you frankly...

Not sure what exactly you were holding in your fingertips for 26 years, but if it had the capacity to destroy mankind, I assume you've had some training. Thats much more than we can say about 99% of gun owners in this country.

If most gun owners had a half a brain in their head, they'd be the first people to call for responsible regulation on guns so that crazy, deranged individuals cant easily get their hands on guns and give all gun owners a bad name...

Originally Posted by Nt_loader

Yes, definately and as a CHL holder I completed a class and shooting exam before purchasing a gun. To maintain my CHL I will need to renew it every 5 years. I'm completely on board with this.

This is sensible. More than can be said of most people arguing the "pro-gun" side of this debate.

would've preferred another NWS thread

Those of you who think the military cannot be used against American citizens need to realize that what is "allowed" or "right" only matters after something has been done. Read up on General Dewitt sometime and maybe you'll realize that the military has been used against American citizens and there is nothing to stop the President from doing so until after it is done. Checks and balances work in the future, in the present we must deal with the abuses the government puts upon us.

Firearms have three purposes: hunting, fun, and killing other people. The first two are the reasons we get to enjoy the firearms we have in case we ever need to use them for the third reason. That last reason can be to defend ourselves against criminals or governments. Neither option is desirable, but both have been necessary in the past of this and other countries and may again be necessary in the future (though we hope not). There would be no America if firearms were banned in the past. Every person in this country gets to enjoy their life here because free men were free to own firearms and passed that right on to us so that we would have it in the future if it ever became needed again.

Originally Posted by oie77

This is sensible. More than can be said of most people arguing the "pro-gun" side of this debate.

Idiots come in all shapes and forms and we have them on both sides

Only thing I want to add to this "discussion" - you guys who are talking about having guns to protect yourself from the government, you're assuming we (the military) would follow orders to go to war with American civilians.

I wouldn't, nor would any other soldiers I know. We're Americans too, as are our families. Same team, so relax with the civil war scenarios. Police may be another story, but the line between military and LE is pretty thin anyway.

For the record, I'm pro gun ownership.

Originally Posted by 'busa

Now he'll tell you that toilets require no licenses and as such neither should guns. The point is simple. A gun is not a tool for protection. It's a tool to put bullets in people.

A car is made to move on a road. A toilet is designed to flush ****. Bricks are made to construct walls with and hammers primary purpose is to hit nails on the head. You wouldn't buy any of the above items if they couldn't perform its intended task. You won't buya gun if it can't put holes in people.

Guns also gave you the ability to have diarrhea of the mouth. I don't see toilets, cars, hammers or bricks doing that.

Sent from my HTC Glacier using Bimmer App

Originally Posted by 'busa

Now he'll tell you that toilets require no licenses and as such neither should guns. The point is simple. A gun is not a tool for protection. It's a tool to put bullets in people.
.

You need to distinguish between rifles, handguns and such.

Handgun=killing people

Rifle=hunting

You can't ban all "drugs" you choose a line and accept caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, etc.

Originally Posted by Back2Basics

Only thing I want to add to this "discussion" - you guys who are talking about having guns to protect yourself from the government, you're assuming we (the military) would follow orders to go to war with American civilians.

I wouldn't, nor would any other soldiers I know. We're Americans too, as are our families. Same team, so relax with the civil war scenarios. Police may be another story, but the line between military and LE is pretty thin anyway.

For the record, I'm pro gun ownership.

I hope most military personnel would agree with you. However, I personally know at least a couple people that are so gung-ho about the military, that I'm afraid would listen to orders, no matter what they are.