And I and tec and a couple others think the line should be drawn one step further. Those guns should be taken away.

Which is fine.   But there's no logical reason for it.   Didn't I just list a bunch of mass shootings that didn't involve a HCAW?

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2013 6:40:00 PM (view original):
Which is fine.   But there's no logical reason for it.   Didn't I just list a bunch of mass shootings that didn't involve a HCAW?

(Assuming there will be a HCAW ban in the future):

I know part (if not all) of your opposition to removing now-illegal weapons which were previously legally purchased is that there is no precedent for it.

To which I'll say: for everything that has ever happened, there once was no precedent for that action before it happened the first time.  Sometimes you establish precedents.

Which I know makes a lot of people nervous because of the "Now here it starts, what will they take away next?"  I get that.

But if we can agree that Joe Citizen does not need to own HCAW and they become illegal, there is no valid reason to allow people to retain private ownership of them.  "No precedent", to me, is not a valid reason.  It's why the previous AW ban was ineffective.  And it's why the next one will be ineffective if it doesn't happen then.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2013 6:40:00 PM (view original):
Which is fine.   But there's no logical reason for it.   Didn't I just list a bunch of mass shootings that didn't involve a HCAW?

Assault rifles only make up 1.7 percent of all guns in America. Their only purpose is to kill people and they are impractical for self defense. What do we lose by getting rid of them?

Posted by tecwrg on 1/22/2013 6:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2013 6:40:00 PM (view original):
Which is fine.   But there's no logical reason for it.   Didn't I just list a bunch of mass shootings that didn't involve a HCAW?

(Assuming there will be a HCAW ban in the future):

I know part (if not all) of your opposition to removing now-illegal weapons which were previously legally purchased is that there is no precedent for it.

To which I'll say: for everything that has ever happened, there once was no precedent for that action before it happened the first time.  Sometimes you establish precedents.

Which I know makes a lot of people nervous because of the "Now here it starts, what will they take away next?"  I get that.

But if we can agree that Joe Citizen does not need to own HCAW and they become illegal, there is no valid reason to allow people to retain private ownership of them.  "No precedent", to me, is not a valid reason.  It's why the previous AW ban was ineffective.  And it's why the next one will be ineffective if it doesn't happen then.

Not so much.

A government round-up reeks of Nazi Germany.   You're just proposing that it's done with guns as opposed to people.   I'm just VERY uncomfortable with govt goons stopping by to say "Hey, you got any guns?'    Anyone intent on doing harm will say "Nope.  Not here, officer."    I'm just not sure what you expect to happen when the round-up begins. 

Additionally, when people die for a cause, I tend to take them a bit more seriously.    Did our forefathers envision AW?   Unlikely.  Did they want to keep the government from disarming it's citizens?   Yeppers.    I'd like some proof that your proposed govt confiscation has merit before saying our forefathers fought for nothing.   I don't see any.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/22/2013 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2013 6:40:00 PM (view original):
Which is fine.   But there's no logical reason for it.   Didn't I just list a bunch of mass shootings that didn't involve a HCAW?

Assault rifles only make up 1.7 percent of all guns in America. Their only purpose is to kill people and they are impractical for self defense. What do we lose by getting rid of them?

Conversely, how many of those have been used to kill people?    What do we gain by confiscating those that weren't?

We eliminate a weapon that is very effective at killing people but not good for much else.

98.3 percent of the guns in America stay with their owners.

What is a 9mm handgun good for besides killing people?

It's very effective for self defense. It's light and easy to use, can be stored and carried easily, and is very accurate at short range.

Seriously, make a list of potential gun use situations. Which one would you want a .223 assault rifle?

Someone's breaking into your house?
Hunting?
Target/sport shooting?
Self defense in public?
Gonna kill a bunch of people in a short period of time at varying distances?

Of those, I'd want a .223 in only the last one. For the rest, a shotgun, handgun, or a large caliber hunting rifle would work better.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2013 7:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/22/2013 6:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2013 6:40:00 PM (view original):
Which is fine.   But there's no logical reason for it.   Didn't I just list a bunch of mass shootings that didn't involve a HCAW?

(Assuming there will be a HCAW ban in the future):

I know part (if not all) of your opposition to removing now-illegal weapons which were previously legally purchased is that there is no precedent for it.

To which I'll say: for everything that has ever happened, there once was no precedent for that action before it happened the first time.  Sometimes you establish precedents.

Which I know makes a lot of people nervous because of the "Now here it starts, what will they take away next?"  I get that.

But if we can agree that Joe Citizen does not need to own HCAW and they become illegal, there is no valid reason to allow people to retain private ownership of them.  "No precedent", to me, is not a valid reason.  It's why the previous AW ban was ineffective.  And it's why the next one will be ineffective if it doesn't happen then.

Not so much.

A government round-up reeks of Nazi Germany.   You're just proposing that it's done with guns as opposed to people.   I'm just VERY uncomfortable with govt goons stopping by to say "Hey, you got any guns?'    Anyone intent on doing harm will say "Nope.  Not here, officer."    I'm just not sure what you expect to happen when the round-up begins. 

Additionally, when people die for a cause, I tend to take them a bit more seriously.    Did our forefathers envision AW?   Unlikely.  Did they want to keep the government from disarming it's citizens?   Yeppers.    I'd like some proof that your proposed govt confiscation has merit before saying our forefathers fought for nothing.   I don't see any.

'Cause if we can't keep our assault weapons, America and the American Dream are dead.  Forefathers obviously fought for nothing, all for nought, no gain whatsoever if I can't own an AK.

#1.   My wife has never fired a gun.   If someone breaks in and I'm not around, I want her to be capable of firing as many shots as possible.
#4.   If the situation reaches the point where I need to fire, I'm not real concerned with collateral damage.

If I were a sport/target shooter, I'm sure I'd like to see how I could group a hundred rounds in 30 seconds.  Sounds like fun.

I'll also add that I don't know why anyone would really need an AW out in the wild but, if they felt more comfortable with it strapped to their back, I'm not going to say "No, you don't need that."

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/22/2013 7:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2013 7:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/22/2013 6:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2013 6:40:00 PM (view original):
Which is fine.   But there's no logical reason for it.   Didn't I just list a bunch of mass shootings that didn't involve a HCAW?

(Assuming there will be a HCAW ban in the future):

I know part (if not all) of your opposition to removing now-illegal weapons which were previously legally purchased is that there is no precedent for it.

To which I'll say: for everything that has ever happened, there once was no precedent for that action before it happened the first time.  Sometimes you establish precedents.

Which I know makes a lot of people nervous because of the "Now here it starts, what will they take away next?"  I get that.

But if we can agree that Joe Citizen does not need to own HCAW and they become illegal, there is no valid reason to allow people to retain private ownership of them.  "No precedent", to me, is not a valid reason.  It's why the previous AW ban was ineffective.  And it's why the next one will be ineffective if it doesn't happen then.

Not so much.

A government round-up reeks of Nazi Germany.   You're just proposing that it's done with guns as opposed to people.   I'm just VERY uncomfortable with govt goons stopping by to say "Hey, you got any guns?'    Anyone intent on doing harm will say "Nope.  Not here, officer."    I'm just not sure what you expect to happen when the round-up begins. 

Additionally, when people die for a cause, I tend to take them a bit more seriously.    Did our forefathers envision AW?   Unlikely.  Did they want to keep the government from disarming it's citizens?   Yeppers.    I'd like some proof that your proposed govt confiscation has merit before saying our forefathers fought for nothing.   I don't see any.

'Cause if we can't keep our assault weapons, America and the American Dream are dead.  Forefathers obviously fought for nothing, all for nought, no gain whatsoever if I can't own an AK.

Maybe, maybe not.   Just asking to see some merit for taking away rights.

Some people say "Big Brother knows best."  Some people question their actions.

Don't worry.  The world needs sheep, too. 

You obviously don't know me very well.  I'm pretty sure anyone who's paid attention to things I've posted for any length of time knows I'm in favor of small government.  Like very small.  And frankly, you are far more of a sheep than I.  90+% of what the conservative talking heads and political leaders tell you you believe.  Less than swamp, who pretty much goes for 100%, but the vast majority.  I'm not listening to any one group of people without questioning them.  But thanks for playing...