NGD! Saiga content

[KCTigerChief]

Originally Posted by Brick

Personally, everyone is still reeling from the senseless murders of a host of children for no apparent reason which has caused a lot of gun owners (me personally, I own a bolt action btw) to be personally attacked for owning. I use it for home defense (heaven forbid), target shooting, plinking, and hunting for smaller varmints. None of which is illegal nor have I ever once considered using my weapon to hurt anyone. Things like this school shooting should be prevented and after the AWB of 1994 did essentially nothing to curb the amount of weapons, I'm beyond skeptical of another ban being the cure. Ways we look at school security, diagnosing mental disabilities, the way weapons are stored when others have access to the premises are all much more pertinent issues that I think could help much more in the short and long run before stomping on constitutionally guaranteed rights.

As for the whole 30rd magazine arguments...The standard AR comes with a 30rd magazine stock, it's what is designed for the gun. Sometimes with other magazines there can be issues with the round feeding correctly among a couple of other smaller issues. When it comes down to competitions, larger magazines are required, with many points at risk, reloading an extra two times can cause the shooter to lose precious seconds. Now in a school shooting situation, if a shooter is limited to 10 rd magazines, two extra reloads do very little to slow a shooter down especially when there is no one to stand up to them. Seconds count in shooting competitions and home defense situations, not when there is one man locked in a school with defenseless children.

Gun owners become nervous when the mainstream media and President start discussing banning certain things within the sport. It becomes a slippery slope. While a ten round magazine cap would be a pain in the ass at the range and potentially detrimental to home defense situations, it wouldn't effect a portion of gun owners terribly, but where does it stop? Are different stocks now illegal? What about certain scopes or bi-pods or the length of barrels? Banning some parts can set precedent for the future of banning of other things that aren't dangerous but are demonized.

Finally, the majority of this "ban" talk comes from people who are ignorant about guns. And I don't mean ignorant in a negative way, they just don't have experience with them and jump to conclusions, especially when these conclusions are rammed down their throats by most media. Gun owners are just as shaken up by the shooting as the rest of America, but we understand how guns work and we understand that if there's a will, there's a way. We're comfortable with the tool so our first thought isn't to ban them. For many people there experience with guns ends when they turn off their TV, and we all know how accurate TV and movies are.

This might possibly be the best post, article, or coverage I've read on this topic in many many years. This is fantastic, compassionate, logical and quite frankly, unbiased. You need to write that to someone somewhere...1600 Pennsylvania Ave even...

[Stevetemp]

I can't find the post newholland wrote about our founding fathers not seeing weapon advancement. That post is CRUCIAL! So many people use that as an excuse to band weapons.


I say....so what! Our founding fathers used the weapons of the day to defend their rights and freedoms. They would do the same today.

You think EVERYONE had the same weapons our founding fathers had? I'm no history expert...but i bet many had pitchforks! Not everyone had a rifle...not everyone had a pistol or a canon! And yet..somehow...their wisdom was ever lasting. Somehow...they knew. The Citizens have EVERY right to BEAR arms! The government shall not infringe on that right! They made it very clear. To interpret differently is just kidding yourself..and you have every right to do that. But realize that you will face opposition...so don't be a {censored} about it.

[~Abstract~]

Drug prohibition = no drugs.

[nerol1st]

 

Originally Posted by Stevetemp

I can't find the post newholland wrote about our founding fathers not seeing weapon advancement. That post is CRUCIAL! So many people use that as an excuse to ban weapons.

 

People that think this do not know {censored} about history.

[newholland]

Originally Posted by Stevetemp

I can't find the post newholland wrote about our founding fathers not seeing weapon advancement. That post is CRUCIAL! So many people use that as an excuse to band weapons.


I say....so what! Our founding fathers used the weapons of the day to defend their rights and freedoms. They would do the same today.

You think EVERYONE had the same weapons our founding fathers had? I'm no history expert...but i bet many had pitchforks! Not everyone had a rifle...not everyone had a pistol or a canon! And yet..somehow...their wisdom was ever lasting. Somehow...they knew. The Citizens have EVERY right to BEAR arms! The government shall not infringe on that right! They made it very clear. To interpret differently is just kidding yourself..and you have every right to do that. But realize that you will face opposition...so don't be a {censored} about it.

i surely didn't erase anything, honestly. what i said was that i was in support of people having and owning single shot rifles-- and that that was available when the constitution was written. thats about it-- i was stating my opinion that i thought it was legit to own rifles, but it'd be better for people to own single shot RIFLES, because they're impossible to hide, and theres very little question of their use- hunting, varminting, and if necessary, protection.

like i said-- no wish for bans here. is that still a question?

[newholland]

Originally Posted by newholland

naw - i said 'i wasnt trying to push my anti gun crazy on anybody'.. meaning that i'm not pushing an anti gun agenda on anybody. i'm NOT really being defensive, honestly. but i am willing to push back when not really getting it.

i mean-- we want what we want-- i get that. but the idea of want and need becomes critical when discussing guns, far as i'm concerned. if it were up to me- i'd limit guns to bolt action in the home, 'cause they're safe, impossible to hide, and that's basically what the constitution gave us rights for. that's just me. i know people will still get semis and full autos through porous borders. it's NOT a quick and easy fix- i know it.

there y' go steve- that's what i said verbatim just so you don't think i'm backing out of my own words.

[Stevetemp]

I apologize newholland...my post wasn't really directed at you personally. I've seen the founding fathers argument about their weapons of their day, and that they never dreamed of full-auto, therefor the constitution doesn't apply.

I say BOLLOCKS to that. 1st off, that is extreme conjecture. We don't know that and it shouldn't be any basis for Constitutional changes. 2ndly, they had access to weaponry others didn't have....so to think they were THAT dumb is disingenuous and self-serving.

Again...sorry for the confusion. Did not mean to address you personally....just generally speaking.

[Brick]

 

Originally Posted by Stevetemp

Wow Brick...an excellent post. Really should be in a syndicate column (better than most op-ed!). You show intelligence, compassion and clarity. We are in desperate need of this these days.

 

 

Originally Posted by KCTigerChief

This might possibly be the best post, article, or coverage I've read on this topic in many many years. This is fantastic, compassionate, logical and quite frankly, unbiased. You need to write that to someone somewhere...1600 Pennsylvania Ave even...

 

Thanks guys Every blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. I currently live in a very rural town so my stance is pretty common, but am staying with my parents for the holidays in a traditionally very liberal town (Schaumburg IL, NW Suburb Chicago) and have had more than my fair share of people call me greedy and heartless for owning a firearm and it can hit a sore spot with being compared to some monster who killed so many innocent people.