Stop Justifying

for Revolution, that's how the Americans defended their country from British because the people have guns. They will keep gun ownership as their constitution to defend America.

In Canada they'll redflagged you if you tell the RCMP (interviewer) your reason to get a gun is to defend your home. you probably won't get your firearm license.

 

Can't say I disagree

 

This is kinda my point , I have no opposition to gun ownership , but if I do harbour any sentiment as far as restrictions , I would be labelled " anti-gun " , it's too bad there can be no middle ground in this " discussion "

 

Thank you Boone Taco.

I also believe that when they do ban guns and only criminals have them....i will then become a criminal for the rest of my days. They can have my guns when i'm dead and my kin are either dead or aren't willing to fight for them anymore.

It is their choice whether they make me a criminal for loving shooting sports. I'm not changing my life and my hobbies/loves.

 

...can't speak to the canadian perspective, but from the american perspective, ...the trouble w/ "middle ground" on this particular issue is it means those of us who believe in the spirit/intent/etc in which the BOR/constitution was written, it means infringing on a right, that happens to be the linchpin to the rest of the rights...

 

Correct. I'll leave it at that.

 

I didn't realize there was an all out gun ban approaching

 

Oh , I totally understand your point , we've discussed this a time or two

but , would you not conceed that some weapons should not be in the public domain , or would conceding that point erode your argument posted above ?

 

Congratulations on your convictions for owning guns. Seriously. I have multiple friends that shoot competitively, and if the government entered their homes, I'm sure that if their findings were made public they would be locked away for being "terrorists" or some other anti American term. Guns in the hands of a learned and trained citizen are in no way negative to me, only the criminal and untrained are they dangerous imo.

 

...more the latter... not sure exactly what you mean by "public domain" in terms of scope.... for instance, here citizens, who aren't otherwise prohibited, can acquire and own automatic firearms, ...this requires a federal "tax stamp" (i.e. registration, mother-may-i, etc...), and CLEO approval in state/local jurisdiction... quite a bit of hoops to jump through, and the fact that since the market of automatics is constrained, cost to buy is high, let alone the cost of running ammo through them.... i'd say this is "infringement enough", ...many believe it's too much infringement...

 

This! Truer words have never been spoken!

 

I appreciate your response

 

No need to be a smart alek when it is obvious i was being hypothetical.

 

Why not?

They wouldn't be used in crime. Ever price BMG ammo?
If someone truly wanted to and had the financial resources to use a .50BMG, or LAW rocket, or land mine, in a crime, they would already have done it... because they are already planning to commit a crime and the law that says that those items are illegal to use is simply one more law.

There's a reason the weapon of choice for gang bangers is 9mm, and to a lesser degree, .38spl.

And FWIW, .50 cal machine guns are not illegal in most states. You just have to have the money to buy a transferable receiver and pay the BAFTE $200 for an NFA stamp. Same for silencers, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and all kinds of sweet items that we are denied here in California.

Name the last time a crime was committed in the US with a .50 cal machine gun.

 

Thank you and agreed. I also believe that hunter safety courses and/or basic firearm training classes should be offered in schools. More kids know to stay away from guns or how to properly handle them, hopefully the less accidents occur. I love when people drive themselves to get educated in these things even if ghey don't plan on having to use the knowledge.

 

So , your answer to my question is yes , I would be anti-gun if I thought that civilians shouldn't be able to own .50 cal machine guns

 

but that is my point , the discussion always is 100% pro gun versus , 100% anti-gun , with no accomidation for anyone in the middle , your " when they ban all guns " comment is just a typical example of that type of polar discussion

 

Not a whole lot of room for "middle ground" in those.

1A - Why does anyone NEED to worship a deity that is not traditionally worshipped in this country? Why is Sean Hannity allowed to spew his hate? Why is Bill Mahr allowed to spew his hate?

2A - Why does anyone NEED anything more powerful than a .38?

3A - You should be a good patriot and welcome soldiers into your home.

4A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 8A - If you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

With respect to 10A allowing for local regulation, that is true, but all 10 amendments have been incorporated against all 50 states as of the McDonald case, therefore "Shall not be infringed" applies.

 

My "they" in "when they ban all guns" is the "they" that is under the total undeucated opposition to firearms that actually sets in place the legislation to destroy my rights.

I have no opposition towards the individuals that simply don't like firearms. That is their choice/opinion and they are entitled to it. It is the people that know nothing about firearms, the ones that one to ban something because of its "HIGH CAPACITY" or "TACTICAL FEATURES." Those are the individuals i do not agree with. They are also entitled to their opinions but i will never stop being livid about their uneducated/illinformed ways of legislature.

I'd also like to mention that i am neither conservative or liberal. I share views of both...but technically i am an independent. I refuse to choose the lesser if two evils.

 

What do you say then? You want to shoot animals? Or play with them?