ysslah

What, I can't have any fun in my own back yard even if I have enough facility to prevent any collateral damage? BS

skidmark

There is no need to give out condoms to minors but thats what this admistration wants to do. His idea of "sensible gun laws" and yours and mine differ quite a bit. Go to Australia and ask if they own a weopon. Oh right the government took them all away. Question everything.

laxflier

Aren't those useful things? And target shooting? Sorry. Good argument. What is the difference in your "list" of things that can kill? Your logic seems to plead that guns are the only things that can kill. Ask a knifing victim if he considers knives bad. An automatic firearm is heavily regulated and are almost never found to be used in crimes, and a 50 cal is fine for some time at the range. Please compare the stats in regards to violent deaths for guns vs cars and drunk drivers. Gonna ban cars? Booze? It is all in the hands of the people who perpetrate. So, if it were up to you, you would take away my right to protect my family as I see fit and the ability to, if it ever came to it, put food on my table in the event of an emergency? Sorry. You have the bad argument.

myoface

Ok...I will try again. I dont understand why someone needs a AK-47 type weapon. However, if you are able to obtain it legally and use it responsibly, I really dont have an issue with that. However, if that weapon EVER (unless you legally sell it) gets in the hands of a criminal and gets used to kill a bunch of people then I (and I think the law should as well) hold YOU personally responsible for that crime.
The main problem I have with these type of weapons is the amount of destruction they can bring in a very short period of time.

ysslah

so can dynamite. Let's get rid of it and stop mining for anything all together. Even better, let's shut down all nuke power plants.

laxflier

And what about shotguns? Great for hunting, right? And hold a good number of shells. And hunting rifles. Some utilize magazines that hold a good number of cartridges, some even the 7.62 round that an AK holds. See my point. Because it looks like an evil weapon doesn't necessarily make it any different from the rifle that gramps blasted deer with. And if your home is robbed, how can you possibly be held responsible for crimes committed by a rifle that was in the loot taken? If they used your car as a get away car and careened thru a wad of kids coming home from a girl scout rally, would you still want you to be held responsible for that cars actions? Give away the 2nd Amendment and start the slow but steady erosion of rights. Ask the peeps in the UK, who only now are rallying in the streets to get the right to own a hunting rifle back after having restrictive gun laws take their gun rights away. Or the Aussies, who were forced to give up their guns. And crime soared in the months after. Basic right, those guns. Like speech. Used constructively, a helluve way to fight. In the wrong hands, evil. But still both protected.

johnso29

Yes, those things are useful. Much more useful then a gun. That was my point. A gun is designed to do one thing, kill.

I never said I wanted to take guns away. I'm not against gun ownership. You want to have a rifle, shotgun, or handgun in your house I'm all for it. It's our right as citizens of the USA. I just think your argument is flawed. A automatic rifle or machine gun have only one use, & are FAR more dangerous then a hatchet. Like I said, bad argument.

myoface

i agree with johnso....I never said i was against gun ownership, just that I dont understand the average joe owning a certain type of gun. ( and notice that i said "type" of gun, not a particular model) And because I dont see a reason for that type of gun, yes I am going to hold you responsible if it gets stolen and used in a crime. Of course there are other things that can cause destruction, but in general, they are primarily designed to serve other, non violent, purposes. Guns, specifically AK-47 "type" guns are designed to kill large amounts of people quickly. In my view, rights come with responsibility, you want to own an AK-47, you are responsible for it until you legally get rid of it, and if it gets stolen, any crimes committed are on your head.

Pilot7576

Johnso...

So it's ok to have a handgun or rifle or shotgun, but you draw the line at automatic weapons? Do you know what hoops one has to jump through to get approval to buy and own an automatic weapon? Please give me one (just one!!) example of a legally owned automatic weapon being used in a crime.

Where do you draw the line as to what kind of gun citizens are allowed to own? DC government, even after Heller, defines a semiautomatic (like the colt 1911 or military issued beretta) as an automatic weapon? So when they can misname the weapon and restrict its ownership, you see no problem with that?

Let's keep guns out of the hands of criminals and let law abiding citizens arm themselves in accordance with the second amendment.

JMO

Pilot7576

johnso29

Fine with me. Only problem.....the current system clearly isn't working.