It really isn't even about the 'rambo style weapons'. It is about a group of people who want to drastically change our entire country and know they cannot achieve their goals as long as the second amendment stands and is enforced.
It really isn't even about the 'rambo style weapons'. It is about a group of people who want to drastically change our entire country and know they cannot achieve their goals as long as the second amendment stands and is enforced.
While I completely disagree with your above post, the boy should be given a break in this case.
Actually WE is dead on. Smart man that WE.
WE is only smart, in your eyes, because he agrees with you most of the time.
That is true. He really is a smart fella though.
Respectfully disagree. Any freedom has a limit. The first amendmant has a break point, you can't walk into a crowded auditorium and yell, "Fire!" Why not? Aren't we concerned that this is just the beginning of the big bad government stealing our freedom of speech? Of course not. I doubt if this was thought of when the amendment was written. When the second was written, I doubt anyone was thinking of the type weaponry available now. We do have the freedom to arm and there are restrictions, ie, the average person can't own a bazooka or a submachine gun. What we're arguing about is where do we draw a line. I liked the world better when I was 18 and AK47s that fired off 50 rounds weren't available.
With that said, what happened to the boy was overkill.[/quote
In the 1700s, the average citizen didn't own a ship with cannons. He owned a rifle of some sort for protection and hunting. As weaponry in the military advanced so did the weaponry of the individual. Centuries later, the individual still tries to keep up--not just for hunting, but for protection from the bad guys out there.
Respectfully disagree. Any freedom has a limit. The first amendmant has a break point, you can't walk into a crowded auditorium and yell, "Fire!" Why not? Aren't we concerned that this is just the beginning of the big bad government stealing our freedom of speech? Of course not. I doubt if this was thought of when the amendment was written. When the second was written, I doubt anyone was thinking of the type weaponry available now. We do have the freedom to arm and there are restrictions, ie, the average person can't own a bazooka or a submachine gun. What we're arguing about is where do we draw a line. I liked the world better when I was 18 and AK47s that fired off 50 rounds weren't available.
With that said, what happened to the boy was overkill.[/quote
In the 1700s, the average citizen didn't own a ship with cannons. He owned a rifle of some sort for protection and hunting. As weaponry in the military advanced so did the weaponry of the individual. Centuries later, the individual still tries to keep up--not just for hunting, but for protection from the bad guys out there.
I'm not for banning guns per se. I've just never heard of anyone protecting themselves, either in public or in the home with a high capacity, semi auto rifle. All those I know with concealed carry permits carry a handgun. I've never heard of an intruder being stopped by an AK 47. I discussed this at length at a reunion last fall with 2 old HS friends, who are retired police officers on the KCMO police department (one homicide, one crime scene investigation). Their conclusion which influenced my feelings was that we, as a society, would be better off with restricted ownership of assault rifles and the removal of high cap magazines due to more crimes being committed with these wepons than instances of self defense. So, I'm not the decider and I'm not just spouting off some liberal drivel. These 2 men are conservatives and retired police officers as well as good, red blooded American boys. What they said made sense to me.
With that said, I doubt it will happen soon. It's like same sex marriage or marijuana. The old gray hairs that run this place will have to die off so it will be a gradual process (IMO). It also doesn't affect my life. I have a .45 and an alley sweeper. That's all I need.
I have cited examples previously. Used to live very close to the Mexican border on the family ranch. We were infested with trespassers including illegals and drug runners. Gangs are rampant in the area as well. Drug runners and coyotes as well as gang members do not carry pea shooters--they are armed with full automatic weapons. A pocket 32 will either piss them off or make them laugh, but you end up at least shot if not killed. A 45 and 12 guage help a bit, but to truly protect yourself you need similar armament and lots of backup with similar fire power.
I am in a metro area now, but the gangs and dealers are growing here. It is getting to the point where it is not safe to honk or flip the bird anymore for fear of full auto gang retaliation. I can't drive around with three fully armed ranch hand/body guards all the time up here and that is exactly what it would take. The cops are out numbered and they are out gunned as well as under trained for what is happening.
If you can suggest a way to control ILLEGAL weapons and their ILLEGAL use without restricting private citizens, I will be all for it. Capone was not arrested and convicted for his ILLEGAL Thompson and the murders he committed and ordered---they had to get him for tax evasion. The problem continues and disarming law abiding citizens is NOT the way to control ILLEGAL weapons.
Full automatic weapons are severely restricted and have been for many years. SO, how do the criminals get them? Not by stealing from law abiding citizens, not at gunshows. Laws are already in place but criminals still do not obey laws.......A rancher on the border is a special situation and their (not MY so you can drop that) suggestion was 'restricted' semi auto rifles. IF they dicontinue ANYthing, yes, what's out there is out there. Eventually an impact will be made though. Your argument is a bit like the argument agains new smog control legislation years ago - argument being those that are out there are still out there. Anyway, does it affect me? No. Do I care? No. Would I vote for restricted ownership of semi autos? Yes. Would I vote to outlaw hi cap magazines? Yes. Do I care what anyone else votes for? Hell no....
That is true. He really is a smart fella though.
WE is cool with me.
That's a pretty severe indictment there. Ease up on the guy!
What would Jesus do?