Self-professed "gun nut" on gun control

[*bfine32*]

(07-03-2016, 12:59 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I agree with you.
A 44mag is not a good choice (apart from the sight of it scaring the intruder).
If discharged, everyone will be slightly blinded from the muzzle flash and completely deaf.
Hollow-points would cut down on penetration, but it would still reduce block walls to rubble.
And if you actually shot an intruder, be prepared to defend yourself in court for use of excessive force or murder due to the amount power it has.

Agreed and I doubt it would be his first weapon of choice to combat an intruder; unless the intruder was wearing a vest. However, it is just like the owner of a high performance sports car. I have it and we both know what it can do, the user just has to operate each responsibly. 

(07-03-2016, 02:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Over penetration is an issue with any home defense option 

I often have issues with over penetration. 

[Belsnickel]

(07-03-2016, 05:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Guns by their function are designed to kill humans, just because you use it for the purpose of shooting birds doesn't mean someone else could not use the 16 gauge shotgun to kill a human. It all comes down to the intent of the user.

Same as a Kia is designed to get a person from point A to point B economically, doesn't mean you cannot drive recklessly in it, in such a manner that would be better suited for a high performance vehicle. 

As I said it is your right to ignore the point; however, just you saying so, doesn't mean one has not been made. My S&W .40 is an SD variety. The SD stands for self-defense (designed to kill somebody) do you think it should be illegal.   

Some firearms are designed for combat, some for defense, some for hunting, and some even just for target shooting. All of them have the capability to be used for one of the other purposes, but a firearm designed for target shooting is not designed to kill people just as one designed to kill people is not designed for target shooting. Is this truthfully something you were unaware of?

Also, as I have said, I don't say they should be illegal, only I have seen no good argument that they should be legal.

[*bfine32*]

(07-03-2016, 05:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Some firearms are designed for combat, some for defense, some for hunting, and some even just for target shooting. All of them have the capability to be used for one of the other purposes, but a firearm designed for target shooting is not designed to kill people just as one designed to kill people is not designed for target shooting. Is this truthfully something you were unaware of?

Also, as I have said, I don't say they should be illegal, only I have seen no good argument that they should be legal.

I do know that various weapons are designed to be more effective at certain tasks. But to say I don't see why this more effective weapon should be legal is just silly. My S&W is designed to defend me and my family, I could also purchase an AR-15 to perform the same task and also be used for target practice and hunting (I think, I don't hunt). 

But many have bought into the fear that the AR-15 is dangerous and should not be sold. 

I will say I doubt you will ever see a good argument about why they should be legal; however, understand the problem may not lie with the argument. So we will conclude this round and round. 

[Belsnickel]

(07-03-2016, 05:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do know that various weapons are designed to be more effective at certain tasks. But to say I don't see why this more effective weapon should be legal is just silly. My S&W is designed to defend me and my family, I could also purchase an AR-15 to perform the same task and also be used for target practice and hunting (I think, I don't hunt). 

But many have bought into the fear that the AR-15 is dangerous and should not be sold. 

I will say I doubt you will ever see a good argument about why they should be legal; however, understand the problem may not lie with the argument. So we will conclude this round and round. 

I could also go on about how the AR-15 and other civilian versions of long guns designed for military use are not the most effective choice for defending your home, hunting, or target shooting.

And no, the problem has definitely been with the argument. Have a good 4th.

[*bfine32*]

(07-03-2016, 05:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Have a good 4th.

I will as I celebrate my freedoms. A good one to you as well. 

[fredtoast]

(07-03-2016, 12:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes,just with  firearms many modifications are illegal. Thanks for helping out with the point, maybe Matt will now start to see the correlation. 

Not talking about any modifications.

Dragsters are illegal to drive on the road.

[*bfine32*]

(07-03-2016, 11:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not talking about any modifications.

Dragsters are illegal to drive on the road.

So you're talking about an unmodified dragster. 

Lets pretend for a minute that dragsters are not modified. The point you are trying to prove is silly. You come up with a vehicle that is not street legal and try to compare it to an unmodified weapon that is legal. 

The point is valid regardless how blind you and others choose to be. 

Answer me this. Which one of these 2 motorcycles should be illegal:

Ducati Panigale 1199 R


Kawasaki Ninja H2



Suzuki Hayabusa



Honda Rebel


They can all take you on a nice Sunday ride.  

[tigerseye]

There might come a time ,when all our citizens are glad that some of our citizens were armed with AR15s etc...

Hopefully not, but you never know.

Pelosi and that groups end game is confiscation/reduction down to nothing.

They are not going to get there all at once, so they start the chipping away at our rights. (Based on Ratical Islam/Sharia actions or any tragidy that occurs or is created.)

If the USA ever got to the point of the citizens needing to bare arms ,do you think Pelosi and her crew are going to save you?

No, of course not, at that point they will be in New Zealand or where ever with the rest.

The right to bare arms isn't just to shot squirrells and rabbits, we may be forced to protect ourselves.

Hope it never happens but our Constitution and our rights as citizens of the USA are presently being shreaded.

One problem is Ratical Islam but the politicians/MSM usually say extremists. What?

Ratical Islam/Sharia is a problem.  Not gun control. It's just the excuse they use to go after more and more gun control.

The founding fathers understood the dangers of the government and of men of great financial power and placed protections within our Constitution to combat these issues.

The powers that be are presently working to nulify these protections that we as citizens need to have for our own security.

It's all about the powers that be wanting to have total control and guns that can be used to defend ourselves is in their way of acheiving total control. (100 million properly armed US citizens is very formidable and is an important source of security for the citizens of the United States of America.)

Sounds crazy right. I know.

Hope and Pray for Peace!!!!!!!!!! (Always)

God Bless America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who Dey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[fredtoast]

(07-04-2016, 02:24 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So you're talking about an unmodified dragster. 

Lets pretend for a minute that dragsters are not modified. The point you are trying to prove is silly. You come up with a vehicle that is not street legal and try to compare it to an unmodified weapon that is legal. 

The point is valid regardless how blind you and others choose to be. 

Answer me this. Which one of these 2 motorcycles should be illegal:

Ducati Panigale 1199 R


Kawasaki Ninja H2



Suzuki Hayabusa



Honda Rebel


They can all take you on a nice Sunday ride.  

What is silly is comparing high powered weapons to guns in the first place.  It is a false analogy used by anti-regu;ation nuts who can not address the actual issue.

Do you believe private citizens should be allowed to own air to ground missles?  Because any one silly enough to believe that wei need to arm citizens to defend us from the US military is going to have to be in favor of letting anyone who wants one to own tanks and anti-aircraft weapons.

Rail dragsters are illegal because they are too dangerous.  There should be no doubt that a lione has to be drawn somewhere.  The question is where. and in order to properly address that question we have to talk about the danger of weapons, not cars or motorcycles.  They are two totally different things.  People who try to claim they are the same are just trying to avoid the real argument.   

[Rotobeast]

(07-05-2016, 11:23 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Do you believe private citizens should be allowed to own air to ground missles?

Only Republicans who own their own helicopters or jets.

[*bfine32*]

(07-05-2016, 11:23 AM)fredtoast Wrote: What is silly is comparing high powered weapons to guns in the first place.  It is a false analogy used by anti-regu;ation nuts who can not address the actual issue.

Do you believe private citizens should be allowed to own air to ground missles?  Because any one silly enough to believe that wei need to arm citizens to defend us from the US military is going to have to be in favor of letting anyone who wants one to own tanks and anti-aircraft weapons.

Rail dragsters are illegal because they are too dangerous.  There should be no doubt that a lione has to be drawn somewhere.  The question is where. and in order to properly address that question we have to talk about the danger of weapons, not cars or motorcycles.  They are two totally different things.  People who try to claim they are the same are just trying to avoid the real argument.   

You compared a rail dragster to a car; yet it is "silly" to compare high powered weapons to guns. You further go on to compare ownership of a non-automatic, non- high  powered weapon (AR-15) to tanks and missiles.

You further accuse someone of "avoiding the real argument" by saying weapons and motorcycles are different things, while ignoring the fact that each have models within them that are higher performance and more dangerous. 

Of course I line should be drawn as to personal weapon ownership and currently semi-automatics (such as my .40 cal pistol) are on the legal side of the line and I am fine with that. Where do you think the line should be drawn?  

[*Nately120*]

Almost 60 years ago we were warned if JFK got elected that we were going to lose our guns. Here we are, same ol' spiel.

[fredtoast]

(07-05-2016, 12:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course I line should be drawn as to personal weapon ownership and currently semi-automatics (such as my .40 cal pistol) are on the legal side of the line and I am fine with that. Where do you think the line should be drawn?  

To be honest banning certain types of guns is not my main priority when it comes to gun regulation.  There are lots of other types of regulations we need more than banning certain weapons.
 
But since so many gun nuts like SSF don't think it is possible to have any gun regualtion without a total ban the conversation always jumps from reasonable regulation to "THEY ARE TAKING AWAY ALL OUR GUNS!!!"

I have no real problem with any semi auto werapons as long as they are all reggistered to owners who have proven they are capable of using them safely.

[Belsnickel]

(07-05-2016, 01:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have no real problem with any semi auto werapons as long as they are all reggistered to owners who have proven they are capable of using them safely.

And this is actually where I stand as well. I get into the arguments about types of weapons because I don't see any need for certain weapons to be legal in the civilian population. It's the difference of advocating for the prohibitions versus not shedding any tears if they were prohibited.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-05-2016, 01:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote:  
But since so many gun nuts like SSF don't think it is possible to have any gun regualtion without a total ban the conversation always jumps from reasonable regulation to "THEY ARE TAKING AWAY ALL OUR GUNS!!!"

Not what I said, but don't let facts get in the way of you trying to make a point.

Quote:I have no real problem with any semi auto werapons as long as they are all reggistered to owners who have proven they are capable of using them safely.

I'll ask again, how do you propose to do that?  The what isn't nearly as important as the how in this case.

[*bfine32*]

(07-05-2016, 01:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And this is actually where I stand as well. 

Well, you could have fooled me. Please be forthright. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-05-2016, 01:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: To be honest banning certain types of guns is not my main priority when it comes to gun regulation.  There are lots of other types of regulations we need more than banning certain weapons.
 
But since so many gun nuts like SSF don't think it is possible to have any gun regualtion without a total ban the conversation always jumps from reasonable regulation to "THEY ARE TAKING AWAY ALL OUR GUNS!!!"

I have no real problem with any semi auto werapons as long as they are all reggistered to owners who have proven they are capable of using them safely.

SSF comments aside, this is where I am at. You want the Porsche, get the Porsche;  but once it is determined you are too irresponsible to own the Porsche, hit the bricks. 

I've always said a license should be required to take a firearm outside of your home. I think anyone (non-violent criminal) should be allowed to posses a long rifle in their home. 

[Rotobeast]

(07-05-2016, 10:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not what I said, but don't let facts get in the way of you trying to make a point.



I'll ask again, how do you propose to do that?  The what isn't nearly as important as the how in this case.

There's only one solution to this here debate.........

GUN PORN THREAD !

We've held off long enough.
Let's start it as "Should it be legal or illegal ?" thread.
No explaining what they are, just let the folks judge on sight and their own research.
Now.... I'll let you start the thread with you honey'ed words, in which we all adore.

[fredtoast]

(07-05-2016, 10:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll ask again, how do you propose to do that?  The what isn't nearly as important as the how in this case.

The same way we do with cars.  Requires a test to get a license to posses a firearm, and make it a criminal offense to posses an un-registered gun or any gun at all without a personal license.

You could even take the comparison a step farther and have a basic gun license that can be upgraded just like it takes an upgraded drivers license to operate a motorcycle.  The basic could be something like a "hunters level" that did not include semi-auto or handguns.

If we did this properly then I would have no problem giving CC privileges to all gun owners who qualify.

[GMDino]

(07-06-2016, 12:02 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: There's only one solution to this here debate.........

GUN PORN THREAD !

We've held off long enough.
Let's start it as "Should it be legal or illegal ?" thread.
No explaining what they are, just let the folks judge on sight and their own research.
Now.... I'll let you start the thread with you honey'ed words, in which we all adore.