Obama and gun control

I watched it. Supporters shrugged it off, and said, "Big deal, she didn't know what it was. So what?" My response was, "I'd think if it's important enough the she wants to ban it, she should be able to explain what it is and why it should be banned."

Duh.

Majority wouldn't know a criminal if one hit them. Don't know the first thing about guns except whatever harm some people might do with them. That's why they're of the opinion they are. If I only looked at the benefits of medical procedures, they'd all be good. Every drug is a good drug if you only look at the benefits of it. If all I looked at was the medical misadventures and adverse reactions, I'd never go to the doctor out of fear of being killed or injured.

Even dumber.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ&NR=1

I remember when that psychotic lunatic killed her husband and others. So that is why she is so dedicated to her cause. If law abiding citizens had ccw's that day, the psychotic lunatic would have been stopped. Criminals will always be the ones to ignore gun laws anyway. If I get enough money together maybe I'll be able to buy my second amendment rights. Until then I have to remain defenseless, since I obey the law.

As a former LE Agent, I wouldn't want to face an M28 Barett 50 cal. Semi-Automatic sniper rifle on the street either!
Can someone give me one legitimate sporting need/use it fills. vs its potential danger in the wrong hands? (like a suicidal teen who gets his hands on his uncle's Barett?)

Devil505 wrote:As a former LE Agent, I wouldn't want to face an M28 Barett 50 cal. Semi-Automatic sniper rifle on the street either!
Can someone give me one legitimate sporting need/use it fills. vs its potential danger in the wrong hands? (like a suicidal teen who gets his hands on his uncle's Barett?)

I can ask the same question about a Buick. Care to ban them as well?

jpete wrote:

Devil505 wrote:As a former LE Agent, I wouldn't want to face an M28 Barett 50 cal. Semi-Automatic sniper rifle on the street either!
Can someone give me one legitimate sporting need/use it fills. vs its potential danger in the wrong hands? (like a suicidal teen who gets his hands on his uncle's Barett?)

I can ask the same question about a Buick. Care to ban them as well?

I can drive a Buick to my job, my Church, my school, the orphanage to hand out toys.

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting.

Molon Labe.

Devil505 wrote:

jpete wrote:

Devil505 wrote:As a former LE Agent, I wouldn't want to face an M28 Barett 50 cal. Semi-Automatic sniper rifle on the street either!
Can someone give me one legitimate sporting need/use it fills. vs its potential danger in the wrong hands? (like a suicidal teen who gets his hands on his uncle's Barett?)

I can ask the same question about a Buick. Care to ban them as well?

I can drive a Buick to my job, my Church, my school, the orphanage to hand out toys.

And a "suicidal teen who get's his hands on his uncle's" Buick kills a lot of people.

Here we have two example's of inanimate objects which become "good" or "bad" depending on the intention of the user. Yet you would limit or ban one but not the other.

A bit hypocritical if you ask me.

I currently work part time, formerly full time. Now a physical therapist. Given that the .50 caliber rifles are costing a minimum of 7,000 dollars (single shot, bolt action, commonly requires a rubber ball peen hammer to open the bolt after shooting), weigh in excess of 40 pounds without the bipod, and the bullets cost about 5 bucks apiece, I wouldn't worry too awful much about facing one on the street. If the person can afford it now, they'll be able to afford it long after they ban them anyway. So, whether or not they ban them, they will still get into the hands of a criminal. They will still be used to kill people. Banned or not, they will be available to criminals. When they're banned, only the criminals will have them.

I've fired the Barrett. Nice rifle, very smooth shooting and didn't have much more recoil than my .50 caliber muzzleloading rifle.

Seem to make a huge deal over the constitution being written over 200 years ago, when "these things hadn't been invented yet". That's an interesting argument, as the flip side of it applies equally as well.

200 years ago, the infantryman was armed the same as the citizen. The same rifles and shot, and powder. Private individuals owned cannon, and warships (you must have heard of a "privateer".

We did leave those days long behind us, with the National Firearms Act when they began requiring a license for a machine gun, and for anything larger than a .50 caliber bore (labelled a "destructive device"). We've long passed the days when people would own their own cannon, although if you want a 120mm howitzer there is a procedure to obtain a license for one. You'll have to pay an exorbitant tax and register each round of HE you want to keep on hand. Just plain old "solid" shells I think are still "destructive devices" as they contain a large amount of "propellant"... and would have the potential to be very destructive if fired anyway.

So arguing what already is, isn't going to get much milage with me. We're already deprived of "destructive devices", automatic weapons (largely), grenade launchers, and an array of other weapons the modern infantryman is armed with, that would have been perfectly allowable under the constitution as it was written when it was written.

Certainly the "similar" small arms we're currently "allowed" under the law must remain so, if the second amendment is to truly mean anything. And, if it doesn't, how long before your computer falls into the same category? Nobody could ever have envisioned the internet, and the ability to write things and have them disseminated instantly all across the country.

For the record... No ballistic vest currently worn or available to most LEO's across the country will stop a 30-06 hunting bullet. And if you're shot with that you'll be just as dead as if you got shot with a .50 Barret, or a muzzleloader, or a 12 gauge shotgun slug for that matter.

Well said & food for thought Leon.

I try... it's a difficult topic to discuss, as where there is much emotion on the "gun control" side... we're discussing "The Peoples'" rights here. When debating peoples' rights and questioning them, one can't be surprised by a level of acrimony. I understand the arguments for it. I do. I've reflected on the night shifts, and situations I've been in have weighed heavily.

If I saw any utility in the laws, I'd support them. I've become even more opposed to gun control since becoming more experienced and learning more, not less.

The basic argument on the gun control side always falls down to, "There's too many guns."

When we hear that, we don't see any mechanism for reducing the number of guns besides gradually making it harder and harder for law abiding people to get them. This while criminals grab and buy whatever they want to, when they want to. No waiting periods, no background checks, at the "Black Market".

Signs at the hospital? "NO WEAPONS ALLOWED!" How quaint... as well intentioned as the sign and policy might be, it's foolish, naive, and short sighted. They're only insuring that the very people who should have a firearm when someone comes in who couldn't care less about their sign or policy, don't have one.

LeonMSPT wrote:When we hear that, we don't see any mechanism for reducing the number of guns besides gradually making it harder and harder for law abiding people to get them. This while criminals grab and buy whatever they want to, when they want to.

My problem is the danger these weapons pose in the hands of the law abiding citizen's crazy, suicidal teen aged son who wants to kill all the people in his school. You're right, criminals will always find ways to get weapons.......Crazies will not.
There is no EASY answer to this problem from either the NRA or the ACLU side.
I like to apply a "Common Sense" test, rather than a "Constitutional Rights" test to these dilemmas: Weigh the potential danger a particular weapon poses to society vs it's utility for any lawful purpose, & let an elected group of our reps debate & decide each case. Untidy---Yes...but How else can you do it??

Devil said:
"My problem is the danger these weapons pose in the hands of the law abiding citizen's crazy, suicidal teen aged son who wants to kill all the people in his school. You're right, criminals will always find ways to get weapons.......Crazies will not.
There is no EASY answer to this problem from either the NRA or the ACLU side.
I like to apply a "Common Sense" test, rather than a "Constitutional Rights" test to these dilemmas: Weigh the potential danger a particular weapon poses to society vs it's utility for any lawful purpose, & let an elected group of our reps debate & decide each case. Untidy---Yes...but How else can you do it??"

When it comes to laws, limitations of peoples' rights, and limitations on government, I will err constantly on the side of allowing The People their rights, and the government their limitations.

Evaluate any law from the basis of the harm it could do if abused, not the benefit to society if used in the manner the authors meant it. Every gun control law that has ever been passed in this country has been used to keep honest and law abiding people from having and carrying firearms. Meanwhile, not throwing a single obstacle up in front of anyone inclined to say, "The hell with the law."

Crazy nephews pose some degree of risk with any weapon, even a machete or a motor vehicle. I'd feel a whole lot safer if I were simply allowed to carry where ever I go. School, court, church, the bar, restaurant... where ever.

Can't do that? Horrifying? Terribly dangerous? Since when did laws against having a gun in school ever stop a school shooting? Been two or three incidents over the past ten or so years where people have intervened in school shootings with a firearm and stopped them. What if those people had said, "Well, gee, I am not supposed to go on school property with a gun. I'll just wait for the police." How many more would have died?

Unless you need a truck to haul it, a trailer to carry the ammo, and it has "NO", "NONE", "absolutely nothing" legal that can be done with it, I have a right to it and will not give that right away or up, to the altar of some false sense of safety and security. Only one thing can come from going down that road. England and Australia, and much of Europe is already there, and they're not coming back. And, it's not working any better now than when any law abiding person could have a gun.

"Weapons" don't pose a danger to society. There's where we're having problems with the gun control side of the argument. "People" with weapons pose a danger to society.

Doubt it? Okay... how come if 80,000,000 people own firearms, over 300,000,000 firearms, more people aren't shot every year? If "weapons" pose a "danger to society", those states and areas in the country with the most "weapons" should be the ones with bodies laying in the streets. But they're not... fact is, where guns are banned that is happening.

LeonMSPT wrote:"Weapons" don't pose a danger to society. There's where we're having problems with the gun control side of the argument. "People" with weapons pose a danger to society.

Here's where we disagree. We can't limit PEOPLE in our society, but we can & do have sensible limits on weapons. (machine guns, grenade launchers, etc)
Just imagine how many more innocent kids would have been killed at Colimbine if the 2 suicidal crazies had easy access to much more lethal weapons than shotguns & semi-automatic pistols!
IMO, to argue that there should be NO restrictions on certain weapons (& thus easy access to crazies) is not a realistic answer either.

Devil505 wrote: We can't limit PEOPLE in our society, but we can & do have sensible limits on weapons. (machine guns, grenade launchers, etc)

So since there are already sensible limits on weapons what seems to be the problem that you think there needs to be more limits? The "crazies and suicidal teenagers"? Criminal activity? Law abiding citizens?