ExRx.net

Matt Z wrote:PS) Target shooting can be a sport and/or a fun recreation activity in it's own right. It doesn't have to be practice for something else.

Don't they still have sharp shooting as an Olympic Sport?

Yes, in several different forms.

Matt Z wrote:"Who gives a $h1t about any freakin gun laws right now." - ironmaiden708

So we're all supposed to trade our freedoms for economic recovery. That's how the Nazis rose to power in Germany durring the great depression.

When did I say that? The nazis rose to power through a loophole in the system and their country was economically in turmoil far worse then ours currently is. Are you implying that our gov't is going to be full of bunch of fascist? What is more important, people keeping their jobs or ensuring that Big Bob gets a rifle for hunting season?

So would fixing the economy also take priority over freedom of speach? Freedom of religion? Due process? Exactly how much of the bill of rights are you willing to forfeit?

So would fixing the economy also take priority over freedom of speach? Freedom of religion? Due process? Exactly how much of the bill of rights are you forfeit?

Your not even making any sense right now. I don't recall any of our rights being taken away and I havn't read any stories stating that a 28th amendment was being created or will be created. Did I ever say "I want to forfeit our guaranteed rights for the sake the economy", NO. I'm sorry if my wording implied that but it is not the case. Since your talking about right being forfeited why arn't you complaining the patriot act? Or do you have a bias against Obama? Or are you willing to 'give up' the 4th amendment for the sake of national security?

I did a quick search and this is what I came up with. Obama supported a ban on the sale of assault and semi automatics. Do you want your neighbor carrying around an AK-47? He is for regulations on the sale and purchase of guns NOT ban. To quote Obama "I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation".

Firstly, I've always been against the Patriot Act, along with warantless wiretapping, waterboarding, etc.

Secondly, semi-automatics are NOT assault weapons. Most handguns and many popular sporting rifles are semi-automatic.

Thirdly, I own a semi-auto AK, so no, I wouldn't mind if one of my neighbors also bought one.

The problem with "commonsense regulation" is that it can mean almost anything.

Proper Knob wrote:

Matt Z wrote:A gun is simply a tool. It can be used for legitimate purposes (hunting, target shooting, self defense, etc.), or misused by a criminal, just as I could beat someone to death with a hammer.

A gun is simply a tool, to kill something else. Hunting is killing, target practise is training to be a better killer, self defence is i presume killing/wounding someone who wants to kill/wound you.

A hammer can be used to kill someone so could a mobile phone, but they have other uses. A guns only function is to kill.

But you still haven't expalained, or i haven't understood, how you can be pro-life and also defend the right for people to carry guns. I'm genuinely not trying to start an argument here, i just don't understand your veiw point, and probably a large percentage of Americans view point when it comes to guns.

Hunting i can fully understand. If someone passes the appropriate tests and is qualified and has a licence to go hunting, i don't see anything wrong with that. But for everybody to have right to carry a weapon? I think that's crazy.

The thing is, making guns illegal will only stop law abiding citizens from having guns. Criminals don't care about a gun violation if they are smuggling them into the country and killing people.

The research also shows that conceal and carry law dramatically lower violence because the criminals don't know if their victims might be armed.

Guns are not the problem here. The problem is the black market created by the drug war, which funds all the gang violence. Poverty and lack of care for the mentally ill are other factors.

By the way, felons, mentally ill and underage people are not allowed to have guns here. You have to be responsible and license your guns in order to have them.

Secondly, semi-automatics are NOT assault weapons. Most handguns and many popular sporting rifles are semi-automatic

I didn't say that. Read it over again, assault AND semi-automatics.

The problem with "commonsense regulation" is that it can mean almost anything.

What your saying then is that it depends on persons interpretation of what common sense means which you seem to believe (ie: assume) he [Obama] wants to ban people from owning guns. But then it wouldn't be referred to as regulating. There is no reason to believe that Obama will ban all guns, it is against the constitution and if he's trying to be left but moderate then he won't be banning them so there is no forfeiting of our rights.

Thirdly, I own a semi-auto AK, so no, I wouldn't mind if one of my neighbors also bought one.

You go hunting for taliban in the woods behind your house w/ that? Haha

Matt Z wrote: Thirdly, I own a semi-auto AK, so no, I wouldn't mind if one of my neighbors also bought one.

Those are a lot of fun... Go through ammo real quick thou, gets expensive at the range I've been to.

My favorite was the Thompson, and i hated the Uzi, almost shot my buddy Tom twice. It really wasn't as funny as we made it seem at the time.

Oh wait, I'm completely off topic, adding nothing to the debate... Sorry guys.

I don't see a problem with semi auto. The whole "assault rifle" thing is kind of misleading. Some of your typical hunting rifles could fall under that. I don't think people should have fully automatic though. I think a lot of people couldn't handle it and accidents would happen.



Also if you look at the 2nd amendment, it seems to be talking more about having militias so people could overthrow an oppressive government. So basically if the government turns into a brutal dictatorship, and everyone get very angry and starts rioting and rises up against oppressors, millions of people with guns will not just create a massive insurgency, but a huge swarm that could roll over the capitol. Just because there would too many of them to stop. Just look how bad insurgency got in Iraq. There are a lot more people here, and they are a lot better equipped.

A very unlikely scenario, but the founders didn't want to leave even the smallest chance.

Ironmaiden, you say that Obama doesn't want to ban guns, but you admit that he wants to ban semi-autos. Isn't that a gun ban?

Also, I never said that that Obama would ban ALL guns. What concerns me is that without constant vigilance the right to bear arms will be slowly erroded over time and eventually regulated out of existance.

It also concerns me that four of the nine Supreme Court justices don't even agree that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms. ..... And guess who appoints suppreme court justices.

"My favorite was the Thompson, and i hated the Uzi, almost shot my buddy Tom twice. It really wasn't as funny as we made it seem at the time." - nygmen

I'm not too sure how that could happen, but you should really be more careful. Gun safety isn't a laughing matter. (sorry if that came of as preachy)

Ironmaiden, you say that Obama doesn't want to ban guns, but you admit that he wants to ban semi-autos. Isn't that a gun ban?

Thats a ban on a specific type of gun, not all guns. What is the big suprise with that anyways? Obama is a liberal, liberals never expand gun rights ever. Anyways gun regulations have been getting tighter everywhere within the past 30 years. Texas, Oklahoma, NC, SC, Utah, Kansas, Georgia, which are very conservative areas run by conservatives, bills created by conservatives. Why, safety.

Also, I never said that that Obama would ban ALL guns. What concerns me is that without constant vigilance the right to bear arms will be slowly erroded over time and eventually regulated out of existance.

Again which will take adding another AMENDMENT which is not a very easy task and the president has NO say in it, he can express his opinion but he can not veto a proposed amendment. Interestingly enough I can't even find a proposed amendment to ban all guns. In July of 2008 they (supreme court) just uplifted the ban of weapons in DC for being unconstitutional and also dont require the dismantling of weapons or safety locks so the system does work.

You can't solely blame liberals if some how they accually pass another amendment banning all guns, restrictions on guns have also been sought by conservatives as well. Your mindset seems to be set in another dimension. What are you scared of, liberals holding power? Do think that they will take away all ur rights and we will become a fascist country? And all this is based on a parties ideology and not on their actions?

It also concerns me that four of the nine Supreme Court justices don't even agree that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms. ..... And guess who appoints suppreme court justices.

There is 4 liberal 4 conservative and 1 moderate on the supreme court, you have no argument with that one.

None of that is ever going to happen. There just isn't enough support for it.