Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
DieChecker

Gun Control Poll

Gun Control in the US  

114 members have voted

  1. 1. What is the best future for gun control in the US?

    • Strongly feel we should ban all guns. No civilian guns.
      5
    • Ban guns other then for strict purposes (Like Australia).
      19
    • Pass stronger gun regulations. More is better.
      13
    • Keep things as they are. Present laws are fine.
      27
    • Remove some, or many, of the current gun laws. See 2nd Amendment.
      50


707 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beefers

Any hunting rifle with a sufficient round can pierce the soft body armor used by LEOs. This has absolutely nothing to do with protecting anybody, it's another monstrous lie used by the left to install a bit of gun control and weaken the 2nd more and more, with more gun control to come later if it is successful. It is just disgusting. This idiot POTUS has little time left, so he's trying to do as much damage possible in the shortest amount of time. His legacy is in ruins, he's been exposed not only as a fraud but and anti-American left wing dictatorial moron that should have never been allowed the reigns of leadership. His record proves that.

Argh.

The problem is the round being used in handguns, which are much, much more conceilable. But then again, if you have the right to bear arms to protect yourself against your own government, people should be allowed to have equal weaponry (but that would mean rocket launchers and stuff, lol).

There's no right solution to guns. Legal guns allows people to defend against criminals/evil govt., but raises the amount of accidents and makes it much easier for criminals (even petty ones) to obtain guns. Illegal guns = only some criminals (and govt.) have guns, so no real defence.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Myles

The problem is the round being used in handguns, which are much, much more conceilable. But then again, if you have the right to bear arms to protect yourself against your own government, people should be allowed to have equal weaponry (but that would mean rocket launchers and stuff, lol).

There's no right solution to guns. Legal guns allows people to defend against criminals/evil govt., but raises the amount of accidents and makes it much easier for criminals (even petty ones) to obtain guns. Illegal guns = only some criminals (and govt.) have guns, so no real defence.

Spot on. There doesn't seem to be a best way. Especially with 2 sides who mostly support the far end of their sides.

I think the majority of the "real people" in this country are closer together but fear what would come next. I think most democrats are not against owning guns. I think most republicans are not against gun restrictions. It's the next steps that scare people. You know, the old "give an inch and they'll take a mile".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wickian

Spot on. There doesn't seem to be a best way. Especially with 2 sides who mostly support the far end of their sides.

I think the majority of the "real people" in this country are closer together but fear what would come next. I think most democrats are not against owning guns. I think most republicans are not against gun restrictions. It's the next steps that scare people. You know, the old "give an inch and they'll take a mile".

There's a reason that saying even exists. People in power tend see any kind of compromise or victory as a sign to take even more the next time around until they're completely satisfied.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shiloh17

Here's my take on gun control:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights.

Back in the days this was written, Militias were manned by the common people, who were armed with their own private weapons for use within the Militia.

Militia source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_American_military_history#Militia

The beginning of the United States military lies in local governments, which created militias that enrolled nearly all free white men. British regular army and Royal Navy handled international wars. In major operations outside the local jurisdiction, the militia was not employed as a fighting force. Instead the colony asked for (and paid) volunteers (i.e., Rangers), many of whom were also militia members. After the local Indian threat ended (in most places by 1725), the militia system was little used, except for local ceremonial roles.

At the end of the colonial era, as the American Revolution approached, the militia system was revived, weapons were accumulated, and intensive training began. The militia played a major fighting role in the Revolution, especially in expelling the British from Boston in 1776 and capturing the invading British army at Saratoga in 1777. However most of the fighting was handled by the Continental Army, comprising regular soldiers.

Above we see sound reasoning why the second ammendment was added. We also see that most of the fighting was regular soldiers during the Revolutionary war (1775–1783), the rest militia. Two seperate entities.

So in my opinion, the writers of the bill of rights were very clear that the people would be allowed to keep and bear arms, though not required to be a part of a Militia.

The preamble to the Constitution states who the people are: WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, Not we the Militia of the United States.

That being said, as a gun owner I have no problem with common sense laws. Not everyone is allowed to drive, not everyone should be allowed to own weapons. I personally have no problem with background checks, closing loopholes at gunshows, or anything else that would keep illegal or legal weapons out of the hands of criminals. However

inconvenient it may be for me. But then again couldn't a criminal buy a gun from a homeowner whose ad is in the newspaper?

It's a hard battle between responsible gun ownership and crimal behavior that demonizes all private help gun ownership.

And based on the U.S Constitutions amended bill of rights, the day the Government tries to take away all weapons from civilians, the Government has failed to protect and defend the Constitution, and the Government becomes the enemy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles

Here's my take on gun control:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights.

Back in the days this was written, Militias were manned by the common people, who were armed with their own private weapons for use within the Militia.

Militia source: http://en.wikipedia....history#Militia

The beginning of the United States military lies in local governments, which created militias that enrolled nearly all free white men. British regular army and Royal Navy handled international wars. In major operations outside the local jurisdiction, the militia was not employed as a fighting force. Instead the colony asked for (and paid) volunteers (i.e., Rangers), many of whom were also militia members. After the local Indian threat ended (in most places by 1725), the militia system was little used, except for local ceremonial roles.

At the end of the colonial era, as the American Revolution approached, the militia system was revived, weapons were accumulated, and intensive training began. The militia played a major fighting role in the Revolution, especially in expelling the British from Boston in 1776 and capturing the invading British army at Saratoga in 1777. However most of the fighting was handled by the Continental Army, comprising regular soldiers.

Above we see sound reasoning why the second ammendment was added. We also see that most of the fighting was regular soldiers during the Revolutionary war (1775–1783), the rest militia. Two seperate entities.

So in my opinion, the writers of the bill of rights were very clear that the people would be allowed to keep and bear arms, though not required to be a part of a Militia.

The preamble to the Constitution states who the people are: WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, Not we the Militia of the United States.

That being said, as a gun owner I have no problem with common sense laws. Not everyone is allowed to drive, not everyone should be allowed to own weapons. I personally have no problem with background checks, closing loopholes at gunshows, or anything else that would keep illegal or legal weapons out of the hands of criminals. However

inconvenient it may be for me. But then again couldn't a criminal buy a gun from a homeowner whose ad is in the newspaper?

It's a hard battle between responsible gun ownership and crimal behavior that demonizes all private help gun ownership.

And based on the U.S Constitutions amended bill of rights, the day the Government tries to take away all weapons from civilians, the Government has failed to protect and defend the Constitution, and the Government becomes the enemy.

Well said. I think we think along the same lines as I believe most people do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sam

Here's my take on gun control:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights.

Back in the days this was written, Militias were manned by the common people, who were armed with their own private weapons for use within the Militia.

Militia source: http://en.wikipedia....history#Militia

The beginning of the United States military lies in local governments, which created militias that enrolled nearly all free white men. British regular army and Royal Navy handled international wars. In major operations outside the local jurisdiction, the militia was not employed as a fighting force. Instead the colony asked for (and paid) volunteers (i.e., Rangers), many of whom were also militia members. After the local Indian threat ended (in most places by 1725), the militia system was little used, except for local ceremonial roles.

At the end of the colonial era, as the American Revolution approached, the militia system was revived, weapons were accumulated, and intensive training began. The militia played a major fighting role in the Revolution, especially in expelling the British from Boston in 1776 and capturing the invading British army at Saratoga in 1777. However most of the fighting was handled by the Continental Army, comprising regular soldiers.

Above we see sound reasoning why the second ammendment was added. We also see that most of the fighting was regular soldiers during the Revolutionary war (1775–1783), the rest militia. Two seperate entities.

So in my opinion, the writers of the bill of rights were very clear that the people would be allowed to keep and bear arms, though not required to be a part of a Militia.

The preamble to the Constitution states who the people are: WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, Not we the Militia of the United States.

That being said, as a gun owner I have no problem with common sense laws. Not everyone is allowed to drive, not everyone should be allowed to own weapons. I personally have no problem with background checks, closing loopholes at gunshows, or anything else that would keep illegal or legal weapons out of the hands of criminals. However

inconvenient it may be for me. But then again couldn't a criminal buy a gun from a homeowner whose ad is in the newspaper?

It's a hard battle between responsible gun ownership and crimal behavior that demonizes all private help gun ownership.

And based on the U.S Constitutions amended bill of rights, the day the Government tries to take away all weapons from civilians, the Government has failed to protect and defend the Constitution, and the Government becomes the enemy.

It's the people's choice, not the government to shape our views to reflect their interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CRYSiiSx2

AR-10 appears to fire a much larger round. The magazine appears larger. And appears to be more recoil absorption.

hqdefault.jpg

Yes the AR-15 generally fires the .223/5.56x45mm NATO round while a AR-10 the .308/7.62x51mm NATO.

But this isn't always the case, a few favorites of shooters are the 6.8SPC, .300 Blackout, 6.5 Grendel, and 5.45x39mm.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.