New York Times - Front Page Editorial

Agman said:
Winchester came out with the Model 94 carbine in 30 caliber 100 years ago and the purpose for which the Model 94 was manufactured is very similar to the purpose of more modern carbines like the ARs. Your post asked all gun owners to respond and what I gave you is our particularly unique requirements for a long gun here in the woods. You asked the question and I told you the answer. It appears that we have a difference of opinion but I would still like to invite you to accompany us on our next hog hunt so that you can teach me how to shoot. Based on your language, it appears that your ego has outweighed your trigger finger.
Click to expand...

I'll be 80 next BD and my "hunting" days are behind me but I did qualify "Expert" on the range in the military. I assure you I know a little about "country ways". I have lived in South Dakota and Idaho and big game were abundant in both places. I still maintain that "assault weapons" are NOT needed anywhere but the battlefield. My position and my "ego" are intact. I did say not to take my opinion personally and it seems you could not do that to which I can only retort, oh well....BTW I have no argument with any "long gun" (rifle) my post refers to large capacity assault rifles only.
 

AZ Jim said:
Simple question to all gun owners. Why do you need an AR 15 or any similar weapon? Why do you need large capacity clips?
Click to expand...

Simple answer, we don't have to need a firearm, or offer any explanations to buy one. Maybe we just enjoy shooting it, maybe we're just collectors or maybe we just want one because we feel like it. That's the beauty of being an American, we have the freedom to buy and do what we want, as long as it's within the law, we need no excuses.
 
AZ Jim said:
I'll be 80 next BD and my "hunting" days are behind me but I did qualify "Expert" on the range in the military. I assure you I know a little about "country ways". I have lived in South Dakota and Idaho and big game were abundant in both places. I still maintain that "assault weapons" are NOT needed anywhere but the battlefield. My position and my "ego" are intact. I did say not to take my opinion personally and it seems you could not do that to which I can only retort, oh well....BTW I have no argument with any "long gun" (rifle) my post refers to large capacity assault rifles only.
Click to expand...

Jimmy, calm down, eh? Your military background suggests that you fully understand that NO ASSAULT RIFLES have ever been sold publicly, in the U.S. Assault rifles are b y definition, select-fire weapons, capable of firing more than one round per trigger pull. I.E., machine guns. Illegal since inception of the NFA 1934 regulations I outlined previously. If you missed them, go back and read, if you do not understand this, eh?

Any number of sporting style hunting rifles sold publicly for the past hundred years or so, are magazine-fed, just like your asserted "no-nos". Remington's Model 740, 741, 742, 7, and a few others all are "high-capacity" capable, yet have been the mainstay of hunters all along. Absolutely no difference between those perfectly acceptable sporting rifles and AR-15s. Except the absolutely ridiculous Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives insistence that "black rifles", collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, "pistol grips", AND high-capacity magazine capability, are to be considered "illegal weapons".

You ought to know better, Jim. In fact, I know you do. AR-15s are no damned different than any semi-automatic sporting rifle. Sorry, Jim. I had to point out these discrepancies in your arguments, in deference to Agman. imp
 

How about we just start enforcing the gun laws on the books. Read your local paper, see how many get arrested for, say distribution of drugs and possession of a firearm by a felon. Follow that case to court, the weapons charge is almost always dropped or plea bargained. Perhaps if we took away the DA's ability to drop the weapons charge, there would be fewer on the street!
This would involve forcing the justice department to enforce federal law
 
imp said:
Jimmy, calm down, eh? Your military background suggests that you fully understand that NO ASSAULT RIFLES have ever been sold publicly, in the U.S. Assault rifles are b y definition, select-fire weapons, capable of firing more than one round per trigger pull. I.E., machine guns. Illegal since inception of the NFA 1934 regulations I outlined previously. If you missed them, go back and read, if you do not understand this, eh?

Any number of sporting style hunting rifles sold publicly for the past hundred years or so, are magazine-fed, just like your asserted "no-nos". Remington's Model 740, 741, 742, 7, and a few others all are "high-capacity" capable, yet have been the mainstay of hunters all along. Absolutely no difference between those perfectly acceptable sporting rifles and AR-15s. Except the absolutely ridiculous Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives insistence that "black rifles", collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, "pistol grips", AND high-capacity magazine capability, are to be considered "illegal weapons".

You ought to know better, Jim. In fact, I know you do. AR-15s are no damned different than any semi-automatic sporting rifle. Sorry, Jim. I had to point out these discrepancies in your arguments, in deference to Agman. imp
Click to expand...
I find you very condescending and I have no need to "calm down" as you suggest. My using the term "assault weapon" has more to do with clip (magazine) capacity. As to the rifles featuring 10 round mags, I believe most agree that should be the maximum allowed, I don't argue against that. Our biggest problem is the John Wayne syndrome which has developed here in America.
 
SeaBreeze said:
Simple answer, we don't have to need a firearm, or offer any explanations to buy one. Maybe we just enjoy shooting it, maybe we're just collectors or maybe we just want one because we feel like it. That's the beauty of being an American, we have the freedom to buy and do what we want, as long as it's within the law, we need no excuses.
Click to expand...
So the simple "desire" to own this weapon trumps the safety of people all over America. Sorry, some want to do many things "because they find pleasure in it" but not all our desires are good for the majority.
 
AZ Jim said:
So the simple "desire" to own this weapon trumps the safety of people all over America. Sorry, some want to do many things "because they find pleasure in it" but not all our desires are good for the majority.
Click to expand...

It's as much about choices & freedom. The freedom to chose to be a responsible law abiding citizen or the choice to be a criminal and commit criminal acts with consequence. And at what point should any hobby, tool, sport etc be outlawed? When does it end? Is actually good for the majority.

And what would another version of/or prohibition. Alcohol rohibition helped fuel and build the first modern gangs/gangster. A model and heritage that being used today by drug gangs. Yet prohibition was supposed to help society. Another day, I digress.

I should add that many are willing to accept risk, they realize there are no absolutes. It's simply part of life. Criminal acts shouldn't be but there is a chance or potential danger with many things that are part of daily life in the US and citizens accept it.

People can do a lot of evil stuff but they chose to do illegal and immoral acts. It's the crime and criminal, not the thing.

I don't want to stray too much but I find a similar situation with drugs and junkies. Why should anyone have to sacrifice their personal privacy and have legal purchases tracked(like sudafed) because some two bit drug addict wants to lie, cheat or steal. They chose criminal behavior to enable their personal habit. Why should anyone who has used legal prescription drugs without incident have to jump through hoops to get legal medication they have used for years.

Blaming drugs or guns is blaming and trying to control a thing rather than the actual individuals that commit illegal & immoral acts. Or the processes or lack there of that supposedly perpetuate their personal criminal choices/behavior.
 
Clearly the lines are drawn on this issue so realizing that no minds will change, I withdraw from this thread and wish all a good day!
 
AZ Jim said:
So the simple "desire" to own this weapon trumps the safety of people all over America. Sorry, some want to do many things "because they find pleasure in it" but not all our desires are good for the majority.
Click to expand...

Well, the great majority of gun owners in America are good, responsible, law abiding citizens. They are no threat to the safety of people "all over America", if anything, if there were a serious uprising with domestic terrorists, they would assist in the safety of Americans, at least be able to take care of themselves, their own families and perhaps their neighbors.

Even with disasters like Katrina, people were breaking into cars and homes, looting and threatening the residents. Those who had no way to protect themselves and their property were victims. Like many other good Americans, I don't ever want to be a victim.

I'm in my sixties and have never had to use our guns for protection, but if I need them, they're there. In the meantime, I'll enjoy the pleasures of occasional target practice with my husband and enjoy my life. I treat others the way I would like to be treated, I respect them and their property, that my friend is good for the majority, not my personal choices of what I'm going to buy with my own money.

By the way, I'm not out to change anyone's mind, they have the right to their own opinions and do what they feel is best for them.
 
WhatInThe said:
People can do a lot of evil stuff but they chose to do illegal and immoral acts. It's the crime and criminal, not the thing.

Blaming drugs or guns is blaming and trying to control a thing rather than the actual individuals that commit illegal & immoral acts. Or the processes or lack there of that supposedly perpetuate their personal criminal choices/behavior.
Click to expand...

So true, I remember years ago being shocked when reading about this guy who brought women to his apartment, strung them up high and "dressed" them like a deer. Just the thought of it made my skin crawl, and he didn't need a gun to kill those ladies, just a nice sharp knife did him just fine.
 
I agree with all that Jim said, there will always be crimes and violence, but the overwhelming AVAILABILITY of guns and especially the assault weapons and ammunition make it too easy for the ones that commit violence.

I have a really hard time understanding why anyone would be against more and better gun control laws to save lives and it would save lives, that is already proven by other countries.

Also note, I DID NOT SAY anything about taking everyone's guns and I don't see anyone else wanting to do that.
 
I have a really hard time understanding why anyone would be against more and better gun control laws to save lives and it would save lives, that is already proven by other countries.

It doesn't make any sense that the job application for McDonalds is more thorough than if you want to buy a gun. And nothing anyone says can change that. I understand that there are people who own weapons and feel passionate about that right. I would also think that you are all law abiding citizens and if they gave you a background check you would pass with flying colors. Right? So what's the problem?
 
fureverywhere said:
I have a really hard time understanding why anyone would be against more and better gun control laws to save lives and it would save lives, that is already proven by other countries.

It doesn't make any sense that the job application for McDonalds is more thorough than if you want to buy a gun. And nothing anyone says can change that. I understand that there are people who own weapons and feel passionate about that right. I would also think that you are all law abiding citizens and if they gave you a background check you would pass with flying colors. Right? So what's the problem?
Click to expand...

....good point, fureverywhere!
 
fureverywhere said:
It doesn't make any sense that the job application for McDonalds is more thorough than if you want to buy a gun. And nothing anyone says can change that.
Click to expand...

I've never applied at a McDonalds for a job. Are you saying that employment applications at McDonalds are more thorough than this form, and extensive background check?? Unless I'm mistaken, this is the form needed to purchase a firearm in the US. https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download
 
I would like to see some statistics on a) how many people annually are actually saved/protected by their gun, as opposed to b) how many people are criminally or accidentally killed by them?

Never mind, I think I know the answer.
 
Warrigal said:
Yes Bob but I've only just woken up and I'm trying to catch up.
I saw your post after I had responded to the question.
Click to expand...

We have "nettle" here in the States.. and I have inadvertently "grasped" some while gardening... very unpleasant... I was able to understand your meaning immediately. Didn't take a botany nor a political degree I may add.
 
SeaBreeze said:
Click to expand...


SB, I believe in the last part of that video, the discussion was about assault weapon....that part of the video was left out....so it is misleading.

I did find this..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dianne_Feinstein


Gun politics[edit]
Senator Feinstein had experienced 2 assassinations as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors where Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk were killed while in office. In 1993, Feinstein, along with then-Representative Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Senator Ted Kennedy (whose lost 2 of his brothers to assassination, neither to semi-automatic firearms), led the fight to ban many semi-automatic firearms deemed assault weapons and restrict the sale of high capacity magazines. The ban was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. In 2004, when the ban was set to expire, Feinstein sponsored a 10-year extension of the ban as an amendment to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; while the amendment was successfully added, the act itself failed.[27] The act was then revived in 2005, and, despite Feinstein's best efforts, was passed without an extension of the assault weapons ban. In response to the Sandy Hook school massacre, Sen. Feinstein has reintroduced legislation to reinstate the ban on assault weapons as well as many more restrictions.[28]


Discussing why the 1994 act only prohibited the manufacture or import of assault weapons, instead of the possession and sale of them, Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."[29]


In July 2006, Feinstein voted against the Vitter Amendment to prohibit Federal funds being used for the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms during a disaster.[30] [31]
 
Jackie22 said:
SB, I believe in the last part of that video, the discussion was about assault weapon....that part of the video was left out....so it is misleading.
Click to expand...

I've seen the extended video Jackie, that really doesn't matter to me. It is "assault" weapons now, which is a false term to cause fear and over-dramatize the firearm. Then what's next, automatic pistols, revolvers? None of these guns should be confiscated from law abiding citizens of the United States....period.

I'm not an expert, but as far as I know, an "assault" weapon is a weapon that if fully automatic, or a machine gun used in wars by the military. Not the semi-automatic rifles that are sold to the public legally here in America. More on the differences if anyone is interested. http://www.assaultweapon.info/
 
SB... do you own a semi-automatic? IF so... why? Is a handgun or a regular shotgun or rifle not sufficient for your needs? Do you own large volume clips... Do you believe you will have the need to fire 50 or 100 shots in seconds? If so.... why.... and at who?
 
When I was at school the teachers explained to us the difference between the words 'freedom' and 'licence'.
I am all for freedom but when freedom turns into licence in the sense that people feel they have the right to do what they like, regardless of the effect of others, then I am in favour of restrictions being applied. Some freedoms are worth fighting for. Licence needs to be governed

freedom noun
noun: freedom;
noun: freedom from; plural noun: freedom froms; plural noun: freedoms

1.​
the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants.
"we do have some freedom of choice"
"the law interfered with their freedom of expression"
​

  • absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.
    "he was a champion of Irish freedom"
  • the power of self-determination attributed to the will; the quality of being independent of fate or necessity.
"patients have more freedom to choose who treats them"

2.
the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.
"the shark thrashed its way to freedom"

​
licence noun
noun: licence; plural noun: licences; noun: license; plural noun: licenses
1.
a permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade (especially in alcoholic drink).
"a gun licence"
formal or official permission to do something.
"a subsidiary company manufactured cranes under licence from a Norwegian firm"

2.
freedom to behave as one wishes, especially in a way which results in excessive or unacceptable behaviour.
"the government was criticized for giving the army too much licence"
​
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top