Just Plain Ruff Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 . I'm really tired of watching society apply bandaids to cancers....And even more tired of watching the celebrating afterwards of those saying, "See! We can't see the cancer any more! It's the same as being cured!" Blah... Well the first band-aids were applied today with Obama's press conference and the executive orders to come.
mikeymedic1984 Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 My point would be that the Constitution is a living/breathing document; as brilliant as our founding fathers were, there is no way that they could forsee today's issues from the view of the 1700s, which is why we have amendments to "upgrade" as times change. I agree that everyone should have the right to bear arms, but there is no reason for an ordinary citizen to own an assault rifle. You have the right to free speech, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre (not sure why that would cause a panic these days). So I am a Republican (really prefer conservative) who is for common-sense when it comes to gun ownership and rights.
Just Plain Ruff Posted January 23, 2013 Posted January 23, 2013 But correct me if I'm wrong Mikey, Assault rifle ownership is still illegal. The guns they are talking about banning now are not assault rifles per se right? I don't get the difference. Is there a difference? I've not read all 16 pages of this debate but I'm pretty sure I've heard that actual assault rifles are still illegal to own and purchase. But the ones they are trying to stop us from owning are not "true" assault rifles but guns that hold more than 10 bullets in the magazine thus by proxy making them assault rifles. Am I anywhere near right? My father and I are meeting a couple of private collectors (aka police officers who have large collections) to purchase several guns for our homes. We plan on purchasing a pistol, a shotgun and a AR15 style gun. We also have purchased a gun safe for each of us which is where the guns will reside in between the times we are taking them to the range to practice firing them.
Happiness Posted January 23, 2013 Posted January 23, 2013 We also have purchased a gun safe for each of us which is where the guns will reside in between the times we are taking them to the range to practice firing them. This is concidered responsible gun ownership and should be law.(dont know if it is in the states but is law in Canada)
Arctickat Posted January 23, 2013 Posted January 23, 2013 This is concidered responsible gun ownership and should be law.(dont know if it is in the states but is law in Canada) In addition to trigger locks and ammo stored in a different location.
Just Plain Ruff Posted January 23, 2013 Posted January 23, 2013 In addition to trigger locks and ammo stored in a different location. that goes without saying
Arctickat Posted January 23, 2013 Posted January 23, 2013 that goes without saying Sorry Mike, I know almost nothing of gun laws in the States. I was just topping off the quote regarding the law in Canada.
Just Plain Ruff Posted January 23, 2013 Posted January 23, 2013 Sorry Mike, I know almost nothing of gun laws in the States. I was just topping off the quote regarding the law in Canada. no I just plan on doing it that way. gun safe for the three guns, trigger locks for the three guns and another locker for the ammo. To me that just goes without saying. I don't know if it's the law or not but it's "Ruff's Family Law" or at least the law set down by my wife in order for me to get the guns.
DwayneEMTP Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 My point would be that the Constitution is a living/breathing document; as brilliant as our founding fathers were, there is no way that they could forsee today's issues from the view of the 1700s, which is why we have amendments to "upgrade" as times change. I agree that everyone should have the right to bear arms, but there is no reason for an ordinary citizen to own an assault rifle. You have the right to free speech, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre (not sure why that would cause a panic these days). So I am a Republican (really prefer conservative) who is for common-sense when it comes to gun ownership and rights. You make a claim to common sense in regards to gun ownership, yet seem to support the banning of weapons that are almost never used to kill anyone, right? Many more people are killed with cars, knives, and firearms that carry much less ammunition. With that being the case, how is their banning common sense? (Sorry, not sure if this sounds like sniping, but it's not meant to be.) Since when does, "No one should really need to own one of those" sound reasoning for banning something? For the record I'm also fiscally conservative yet with no desire or intention of ever owning any of the types of guns in question. I argue only from what I believe to be the American spirit and the spirit of the constitution/Second Amendment..
DFIB Posted January 31, 2013 Posted January 31, 2013 I am not sure what you are asking or stating? I tan across this video today and it made me think of the comparison between demographics between countries. This guy explains it a lot better than I was able. His context is different as I was focusing on schools, but his point is very similar. http://youtu.be/Ooa98FHuaU0 Also Ted Cruz gives a pretty good description of the the complexities of determining some rifles as "assault weapons". I don't think I agree with the video title, I didn't see any sweeping. http://youtu.be/Wi6gZU01yF8
Recommended Posts