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 -

Nugent: Gun-free zones a recipe for disaster


Fluffybunny

Recommended Posts

OK...I am going to wait while the UK folks stop having seizures over the title...

...deep breaths...go to your happy place...

:P

I am just kidding...I just mention that because of the incredible difference in opinion...actually it is more than that...more fundemental, and I think after participating in many gun related threads here over the years I have come to the conclusion that people in the USA have a unique relationship/history with guns and it gives us such a different opinion. Don't get me wrong, it isn't as if everyone here is a gun owner, and the statistics escape me right now, but I know that a sizable percentage of Americans own a weapon. I own severall some for protection and most for the sake of having a collection. I think that everyone should have a thorough background check, and have to attend a gun safety class to be able to buy a gun.

Some states are stricter than others. Where I live there is a 5 day waiting period for the background checks that the police/fbi do based on several criteria. Only after passing that can a person own a weapon. If you are a criminal, non citizen, have a restraining order, addicted to drugs, commited any violent acts, been found mentally unstable... I don't recall all of the aspects of the background check. I think california requires a gun safety course and 15 day waiting period, or in place of gun safety course; a military background.

Ted Hugent is about one of the most extreme gun people you can find, he is definately near the end of the spectrum...I am not as extreme as he is in my beliefs towards gun ownership and I think there are gun laws that are appropriate and should be enforced vigorously...

Anyway, I came across this on CNN and thought that considering how many guns are out there, he has a point. The fact that law abiding citizens very often cannot carry guns with them puts them at a disadvantage against someone who cares less about gun laws and will carry a gun, anywhere and anytime they please.

This is about the point where someone says that there should not be any guns for anyone but the military and the police...well, that is just not even an option. Really. We have millions of guns here, and the Second Amendment says we can legally own them, and even if someone did try to confiscate guns from the citizens, there would be rather a nasty war as most folks would not give them up...

Personally, my take is that we are a young country with a rich history when it comes to guns; they are a big part of our culture in many ways... in my case I need to be able to protect myself and my family from animals and criminals in my home that would have a 30 minute response time from the police.

Anywho, I would like to see what folks think about this article. Please be civil with each other...

This is from Ted Nugent; rock star/gun supporter.

WACO, Texas (CNN) -- Zero tolerance, huh? Gun-free zones, huh? Try this on for size: Columbine gun-free zone, New York City pizza shop gun-free zone, Luby's Cafeteria gun-free zone, Amish school in Pennsylvania gun-free zone and now Virginia Tech gun-free zone.

Anybody see what the evil Brady Campaign and other anti-gun cults have created? I personally have zero tolerance for evil and denial. And America had best wake up real fast that the brain-dead celebration of unarmed helplessness will get you killed every time, and I've about had enough of it.

Nearly a decade ago, a Springfield, Oregon, high schooler, a hunter familiar with firearms, was able to bring an unfolding rampage to an abrupt end when he identified a gunman attempting to reload his .22-caliber rifle, made the tactical decision to make a move and tackled the shooter.

A few years back, an assistant principal at Pearl High School in Mississippi, which was a gun-free zone, retrieved his legally owned Colt .45 from his car and stopped a Columbine wannabe from continuing his massacre at another school after he had killed two and wounded more at Pearl.

At an eighth-grade school dance in Pennsylvania, a boy fatally shot a teacher and wounded two students before the owner of the dance hall brought the killing to a halt with his own gun.

More recently, just a few miles up the road from Virginia Tech, two law school students ran to fetch their legally owned firearm to stop a madman from slaughtering anybody and everybody he pleased. These brave, average, armed citizens neutralized him pronto.

My hero, Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp, was not allowed by Texas law to carry her handgun into Luby's Cafeteria that fateful day in 1991, when due to bureaucrat-forced unarmed helplessness she could do nothing to stop satanic George Hennard from killing 23 people and wounding more than 20 others before he shot himself. Hupp was unarmed for no other reason than denial-ridden "feel good" politics.

Rest of Article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • truethat

    15

  • Bill Hill

    8

  • Michelle

    7

  • __Kratos__

    7

Yeah, well, i'm going to avoid this "debate" like the plague after I say that I love Ted Nugent's music, but i think he is an idiot, and with his attitude, there can be no serious, rational discussion of this issue.

What bothers me about Ted is that he is a fairly serious draft dodger. His attempts to get out of going to Vietnam are very curious and controversial -- but when he had a chance to be a "real man" and go get shot at while he was shooting others, he wimped out big time.

But he sure loves to shoot animals, who can't shoot back, and it makes him feel very macho. There is something wrong with that.

I will say that I know that Ted has done a lot of good for others with his charity work, etc. He's a great musician, but an obnoxious guy, who sometimes can be a very good guy. He's complex.

For the record -- I own a gun, I like my gun, but I favor some form of reasonable gun control.

Also for the record -- I know what it's like to take a bullet because I was once shot in the stomach, which damn near killed me.

The kid who shot me was years later found dead in the back seat of his car on I-29 with a bullet in his head. (I had nothing to do with it).

But mine and his are typical American experiences in a country that loves it's guns. If we are going to have a lot of guns, shooting and gun deaths are always going to be apart of the American experience -- if that's what we want, then that's what we want, and that's what we'll get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand this argument to a degree. But it hinges too much on the bravery and aim of someone with a gun.

The problem that it does address is that guns are used by criminals who are going to break the law. So if you tell everyone that they can't carry a gun only the law abiding citizens are going to obey it, making them sitting ducks for those that don't.

The right to bear arms is not supposed to, if I understand correctly, give people a way of protecting themselves from their fellow criminals. It rather is supposed to protect its citizens from a situation where a dictator takes over the country and starts controlling the people through force. Since we have the right to bear arms, this is supposed to make a sneaky dictator wary about the idea of controlling the masses through force.

But the world has changed enough that I honestly don't think this is something we have to worry about right now. It was set up as a reaction against the tyranny of the British and French back in Revolutionary times and even THOSE governments have changed to reflect more freedoms.

So now what is the point in carrying a gun? Why is it for example that this kid or any kid can purchase a gun that is solely designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible with the least amount of effort?

Why is that gun being sold? There is only ONE reason that someone needs to buy that sort of gun. And its to kill as many people as possible with the least amount of effort.

Gun supporters should pause to recognize this fact.

Hunting doesn't require a mad spray of bullets. And perhaps if people want to buy just the gun because Guns don't kill people, people kill people, they should make a law that you can't purchase more than ONE round of bullets in the gun per year or in the owners lifetime.

Perhaps we are going after the wrong thing. Perhaps we should go after the bullets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very well thought out post and one I can totally agree with FB. I also totally agree with Nugent that these gun free zones only disarm law abiding citizens and not the criminals. One amazing thing is that you don't hear of the instances where a legally armed citizen brought a quick and early end to a would be massacre. Gee a pro gun story like this wouldn't make people tune in or buy the paper now would it? We only hear about the tragedies that can be sensationalized for the medias own gain. Its amazing. Turn off the TV, go live life and stop forming the opinions they want you to form.

If we look at the anti gun crowd out there and rationalize their arguments we see just how many of their arguments are not based on logic, reason or a decent thought process but emotion and that emotion being fear. Their first argument is that if we take all guns away crime will automatically drop and this will be a safer country. The answer to this always is (yet they never comment back) that the criminals who already have guns wont turn them in. What makes you think someone who breaks laws already is not going to break a new one? This will only take the guns out of the hands of good law abiding citizens and force them to rely on an all to often minutes long response time of the local police. What these people fail to realize is that there are people out there living a different kind of life than them. Why is it that its only the suburbanite soccer moms and city dwellers that have such vocal anti gun opinions? Because they only see the bad things about guns on the news or in the papers. They have a decent response time from their police force and see no need to protect themselves. Thus guns are bad to them. If they stepped outside of their white picket fenced in yard and looked down the road further and further away from city life they would see guns in use everyday and life being better for it.

As you said FB your local police response time is 30 mins and there are a lot of people that live with similar response times in their area. Even if you live in an area with a 3 min response time. What good is that if you wake up to a noise and its some bad guy coming down the hall way and he is armed? Bedroom doors are no protection to you> what about your children the next door down in the hallway? Are you going to call 911 and pray he doesn't harm you or them in the next few minutes? That is no way to live. Knowing you're helpless until the authorities show up. Here is a nice example that should apply to guns if you insert the proper words. Do you own a fire extinguisher? If you have a fire in your kitchen do you call 911 and let the flames spread while you sit and wait for the firefighters to show up? Of course not. You have a tool that you purchased and learned how to use in order to deal with situations like this. In order to keep the fire from spreading while you wait for the firefighters you act accordingly and try and put out the fire. Why cant a gun be a tool that you get training in how to use and then hope the day never comes where you have to use it? Read the opposing article that is linked from Nugents. Tell me you don't want to smack this guy. He is a coward. He is fixated on the gun that man used to rob him. It sounds like he soils himself every time he remembers that night. He lets his fear form his opinion. I find this a bit disgusting.

It always disturbs me a little bit when gun owners are called rednecks or cowboys(like those are bad things). Yet if I call an anti gun person a yuppie or soccer mom I'm wrong? Regardless lets look at the stereotype of the redneck gun owner. Generally rednecks are classified as someone living on the low end fo the income scale. Though I do know some highly paid ones myself. Does the anti gun crowd stop and think why these people need guns? Of course but they just think its because they are uneducated or just don't know any better. No. Its because they need them to survive and get food. Yes Mrs. Bush there are poor people in this country still. Look at the price of beef or any meat. Its going up all to steadily. These rednecks with the gun racks in their pick up trucks need those guns in order to hunt and get food for their family. A decent sized deer can get you 50 pounds of meat easy. Compare the price of 50 pounds of beef right now to what it cost to bring in that deer. You are going to see a big price difference especially if you compare the price of the two cut for cut. This doesnt include the squirrel, rabbits or anything else they hunt. Hell with the price of food going up I'm seriously looking at hunting this fall and I have a good paying job.

The last thing I want to touch on is the fact that our Constitution protects our right to keep a bear arms. Of lets forgoe the debate about what the exact line means. Our forefathers knew what taking guns away from all citizens would allow the government to do. Other that the debate on what the second amendment actually means there are those that say we should give it up. Hand it back to the government and say here you can take it back we don't need it anymore in these civil times in which we live. Of course the power hungry government would love to accept it from us. Why don't we hand them back our other freedoms since this is such a different time and we don't need them? The freedom of speech hurts so many people everyday. Well lets hand that one back just to make people feel better and be safe from harsh words. What about religion? That is causing war right now. Well if we outlawed those other ones we wouldn't have these problems. Lets give that one back. The one about assembly? Well surely if some people are assembling and the government doesn't like it that must mean those people are up to no good and if they are assembling and they don't want people knowing about it they must be up to no good. Shall we give this one back as well? Standing up for the Second Amendment means much more than just that. Its standing up for the Constitution as a whole. Every line and every word. Our freedoms are for sale and have been sold way to much already and it needs to stop. Freedom sold for some happy thoughts. It is truly disturbing.

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Hand guns are made for killin'

Aint no good for nothin else.."

Saturday Night Special

Lynyrd Skynyrd

What failed for the students and faculty at VT was the ability of a man who had been admitted to mental institution and had serious mental defects, (nowithstanding he was not a US citizen), to so easily and quickly purchase a handgun.

I have owned guns (I have a couple pistols, rifles and shotguns-all legal) all my adult life, and while I am for the 2nd amendment, I also see the need for some sort of official review in purchasing these things; just like a drives license. (More so than what we have now).

Especially for handguns..Cho would have had a harder time moving about campus and being mobile in close quarters with a rifle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kevin A.

That's interesting but its not an all or nothing claim. Its not that all citizens need to turn in their guns. But rather the questioning of if the founding fathers would not have a problem with this law based on the types of weapons that are available now. Back in the time that this law was made shooting a gun was a VERY complicated process. The use of a gun would have been more like a rifle keeping someone at bay off your farm.

Not walking into a school and opening up.

The reason that gun laws should be redressed is that "arms" are not quite what they used to be. As I stated the guns are designed to kill as many people as possible with the least amount of effort.

The more I think of this the more I think we should try to go after the bullets. Because since this guy was able to wound 50 people that means he had at LEAST 50 bullets. Why would a person need this amount of bullets?

Imagine if a gun law had only allowed him 5 bullets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Hand guns are made for killin'

Aint no good for nothin else.."

Saturday Night Special

Lynyrd Skynyrd

What failed for the students and faculty at VT was the ability of a man who had been admitted to mental institution and had serious mental defects, (nowithstanding he was not a US citizen), to so easily and quickly purchase a handgun.

I have owned guns (I have a couple pistols, rifles and shotguns-all legal) all my adult life, and while I am for the 2nd amendment, I also see the need for some sort of official review in purchasing these things; just like a drives license. (More so than what we have now).

Especially for handguns..Cho would have had a harder time moving about campus and being mobile in close quarters with a rifle.

True. There should have been red flags all over his record given his mental history and what the court ordered him to undergo. That COULD have stopped him from acquiring the two handguns. What if he decided bombs where the way to go? Or poison in the cafeteria? Mind you these don't fit his go out in a blaze of glory sick and twisted mind of his but these are possibilities. Someone could easily use these two and many other options to kill as many.

I will agree that maybe we need to look at the testing involved before purchasing a gun. Maybe we need a every four year test much like a drivers license. Perhaps we could link it with getting a license so it shows whether or not you are qualified to purchase. How would we go about this? What sort of mental evaluation should we give? We all know there are people of not so sound mind that have drivers licenses. How could we test people?

I don't think that insane individual would have had a harder time using a rifle opposed to the handguns. No one rushed the guy. As far as we know all they did was lay down and pray they didn't die. I'm assuming by rifle you mean something with a 5 round magazine and not an AR15 type rifle correct? With a 5 round magazine rifle he could have done less damage yes but damage none the less. Lives could still be taken with a single shot rifle or shotgun. What if he waited until a football game and started taking shots at the crowd? How many could he have killed using only low capacity magazines? Its the act itself that is the problem and not necessarily the means.

Kevin A.

That's interesting but its not an all or nothing claim. Its not that all citizens need to turn in their guns. But rather the questioning of if the founding fathers would not have a problem with this law based on the types of weapons that are available now. Back in the time that this law was made shooting a gun was a VERY complicated process. The use of a gun would have been more like a rifle keeping someone at bay off your farm.

Not walking into a school and opening up.

The reason that gun laws should be redressed is that "arms" are not quite what they used to be. As I stated the guns are designed to kill as many people as possible with the least amount of effort.

The more I think of this the more I think we should try to go after the bullets. Because since this guy was able to wound 50 people that means he had at LEAST 50 bullets. Why would a person need this amount of bullets?

Imagine if a gun law had only allowed him 5 bullets?

Look above at my reply to Pink Floyd about the idea that the type of gun matters or its firing capabilities.

So your idea of a bullet limit a hunter and his alotment of 5 rounds should do what every year? Practice with the first three and then use the other two to bag his one deer? what if he needs to take more than one deer? What if he is squirrel hunting and needs to take more than 5 squirrel? Rabbit hunting? Duck, dove or pheasant hunting? All which take more than just 5 rounds.

Maybe this isn't your argument. Maybe its that handguns should be limited to such and such rounds a year. Some number less than 50 it seems if not less than 10. Have you ever shot recreationally Truethat? Perhaps gun owners don't deserve the ability to shoot recreationally as much as they can afford to given the chance that someone could abuse such freedom and kill others. Lets apply the same things to alcohol since if abused it can kill people. Maybe we can write laws that only allow a person one drink per week since anymore could be abused. If one person only needs 5 rounds a year then one drink a week is certainly enough. I wonder how much backlash this one drink a week limit would receive? My logic for the one drink a week limit is as sound as yours. No one "needs" more than this to get through life and if they do they have a problem. Or if we allowed more than this someone could abuse it and harm other people. Lets ban alcohol all together. If we did that then this world would be such a better place. The criminals wouldnt have any alcohol either because.....um what? We tried that before and it didn't work? Damn it.

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how people always talk about "Hunting" in this debate.

First off there are plenty of restrictions in hunting. Time, type, etc. So adding a few more is no big deal.

I don't see how anyone actually NEEDS to kill a few more squirrels.

Second of all

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/16/...in2691645.shtml

The guns the shooter used were not guns you would use for HUNTING. So if you are regulating the kind of bullets that would be allowed, it is like apples and oranges.

There is no reason that someone needs hundreds of bullets for a hand gun. You could easily regulate that all hand gun practicing needs to be done at a range and allow for bullets there but not to be sold.

You don't need to have more than one round of bullets for a hand gun unless you plan on using it to kill people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I like to go out in the woods where I have a target area set up instead of a range every once in a while. It's too nice outside to stay cooped up indoors all the time. Besides that, if you can't practice, for those that don't live near a range, you'd be more dangerous and less confident in a stressful situiation. Why pay for a range and gas if live in an area where you can walk to your taget practice area?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are different grains of bullts, some more powerful that others that make the gun kick harder. If you keep a powerful grain, practicing with blanks is a lot different. Besides that, how are you going to know if you hit the target or not? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welll I guess my take on it is that the right to bear arms doesn't really include recreational shooting.

So its a loss on your part. If you want to shoot outside you'll need to try to encourage someone to open outside.

I honestly think that the number of bullets should be targeted.

I might just take this up as an issue actually because I think its the best way around the stupid gun laws that think its reasonable for people to stock pile semi automatic weapons in case they want to go "squirrel hunting'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just unrealist to alot one bullit per year. When you need a gun in and emergency you are aiming at a moving taget, something that you don't do in taget practice so you might empty the whole magazine and only hit the person once. What if there was more than one attacker?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say one bullet per year.

I said one loaded weapon per year.

In other words when you buy your gun you are allowed to fill it ONCE. Then if you empty your gun you need to come in and fill out a forum to show that you have and then you can fill it again ONCE.

But we can regulate the bullets without TOUCHING the constitution. There is no right to load up on bullets.

You have a right to a loaded gun. And you have one. You don't have a right to shoot your gun at whim and I think that is the part that people are missing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine if a gun law had only allowed him 5 bullets?

5. Come he was using han multiple hand guns. This guy was not going to be stopped.

We have enough gun laws. I do favor going back to a 3 day waiting period. Truthfully, I want to by an assault rifle myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right but don't you think that ease in which he was able to plan this contributed to his carrying it out?

He just walked in and bought the guns and bullets.

Don't you think that if he had been limited in the number of bullets the less number of people he would have shot?

The original article speaks of 2-3 people being killed because a shooter was able to stop the killer.

Obviously they recognize that there still would be killings?

Put it this way ETA

If this same killer could have walked into a store and bought several bombs do you doubt that he would have tried to blow up the school?

Yes he was nuts. But we made it easy for his and he utilized this to the maximum capacity.

Edited by truethat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how people always talk about "Hunting" in this debate.

First off there are plenty of restrictions in hunting. Time, type, etc. So adding a few more is no big deal.

I don't see how anyone actually NEEDS to kill a few more squirrels.

Second of all

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/16/...in2691645.shtml

The guns the shooter used were not guns you would use for HUNTING. So if you are regulating the kind of bullets that would be allowed, it is like apples and oranges.

There is no reason that someone needs hundreds of bullets for a hand gun. You could easily regulate that all hand gun practicing needs to be done at a range and allow for bullets there but not to be sold.

You don't need to have more than one round of bullets for a hand gun unless you plan on using it to kill people.

Like I said to Pink Floyd above. The guns used for hunting could easily have been used in this unfortunate incident. They could be used in many other instances in place of handguns and are. If handguns would suddenly disappear then you would see a sudden spike of violence using rifles and shotguns. Then the anti gun crowd would start protesting that these types of guns should be banned. Its a path towards banning all guns and if you look into the inner working of the major anti gun lobby this is their plan. Handguns. Then rifle. Then shotguns and on and on until all are banned.

Do you hunt Truethat? Based on your comments I assume you do not. Adding a few more restrictions to something YOU don't do sounds like its not a problem. what if it was something YOU do? Then maybe you would see the problem here. Hunters often need to bag many animals depending on what they are hunting. For instance when you go squirrel hunting you NEED to kill a few in order to make a meal out of them. They are small bony critters yet taste very good so you need a few in order to make a full meal. You might not NEED to hunt in order to survive but there are those in this country that DO. Squirrel, deer, turkey etc etc are their main source of meat during a year. Just because you do not see the need in this does not mean it doesn't exist. Some people need to hunt. Hunting equals their families survival.

I am quite well aware of the guns used in this most recent school shooting. Everyone knows what type they are and how the media has sensationalized them. Hell I own another companies version of the 9mm he used. More or less same gun. Same capacity and everything. Oh I have a scary laser site that goes on it also. Here is something to think about. This handgun I own was sitting in the car as I ran up to bank between these posts and just a few minutes ago. Yes I own the gun legally and can legally carry in my state. I am licensed to do so. Now the man in front of me was a local store owned who has his shop located two buildings down from the bank. He was getting a large sum of cash out of his account and walked back over to his store. Now I sat in my car and watched him walk across the street and over to his store. Oddly enough my legally owned weapon having the same features and caliber as that used in the VA Tech shooting did not whisper in my ear that I should take it in hand and relieve that store owner of his money and life even though I could use the former. This inanimate object that I own did nothing but sit in my bag and try not to rust. Thats it. An inanimate object does not compel someone to do evil things even though an easy opportunity was there.

Back on track here. It doesn't matter what type of gun was used in that shooting. There result would be the same or perhaps worse. Actually the .22 cal handgun he used has the same caliber of round that could be used for hunting. It is a good squirrel round actually. So the same rounds could be used in a handgun or a rifle. What about the 9mm? There are rifles(carbines to be specific) that take this same round. These rifles could be used for hunting and probably are.

No reason that someone needs hundreds of rounds for a hand gun? Recreational shooting which you don't seem to agree with. Thats the reason. I like to have that many on hand in case I want to take a quick trip to the range or walk out into the woods and shoot at a target. Your idea that all shooting could be done at a regulated range and no ammunition taken home or purchased and kept at home could be applied to my alcohol limitation example as well. All drinking must be done at a federally regulated establishment and you are not allowed to take any home or purchase it for consumption elsewhere. Now in order for the guards(and we must have gaurds because alcohol is so dangerous) will not leave you out of the building unless you pass a breathalyzer test. This way if you are legally drunk you can not leave the premises and drive a car or operate heavy machinery. You can not take the alcohol in your bloodstream off the premises and get into a drunken brawl or go home and abuse a spouse. This is the same logic as your bullet control. Regulate a potentially dangerous and abused THING at any cost in order to make people "safe". You don't need any more than one drink a week unless you plan on getting drunk and potentially killing someone. Sounds a lot different now doesn't it?

Do you drink Truethat? Smoke? Overeat a little? Drive a car?Lets bad guns because they can kill people if abused. Lets ban alcohol because it can kill people if abused. The effects of smoking only harm people and are a burden on our health care system. Lets ban cigarettes. Overweight people are a burden on our health care systems. Lets regulate how much food a person can purchase. If they can own enough food to get overweight they wont become overweight. Lets make cars sure that cars can only move at 20MPH or less. You dont NEED to do any faster than that. Need to be there sooner? Leave early. Speeds faster than this can kill people if something goes wrong. Lets put regulators on all cars.

I will end with this. Truethat it seems so easy to condemn something you do not do and seem to have no interest in doesn't it? So easy to think ill of others because of the inanimate objects they own. So easy to feel you have the right to judge me and believe something I do should be regulated because you neither do it nor agree with it. Its a slippery slope so I would watch your step.

I'm off to enjoy the day. Its gorgeous outside, all the yard work is done, my bills are paid and its was payday yesterday. I think I might just go a buy a couple boxes of ammo and go out in the woods. I think I will take my inanimate objects out and have some fun this evening. Hmm I've been thinking of another handgun purchase. I might sit down and look at my funds and see if I can afford one soon. I bid everyone good day.

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kevin You don't NEED to kill squirrels.

You WANT to. There is a difference.

We are talking about the US right? So there's no NEED to kill animals in hunting. Some families might CHOOSE to live this way but it is not a necessity.

If we are talking about Alaska or some remote area that's altogether different and those states would have gun laws to reflect this.

And as I said semi automatic weapons are NOT USED to kill squirrels. They are used to kill PEOPLE. That is what they are designed for.

You state that we would see a spike in crimes committed by rifles if we limited the amount of bullets?

That's a statistic pulled straight out of thin air. You have no idea if this is true or not.

All I know is that other parts of the world don't have the same gun violence as we do in the US.

ETA

I notice that you say lets ban things that cause harm to people if they are abused. WE DO DO THAT>

You can't smoke in restaurants and bars here in NYC. You can't talk on cell phones while driving. Etc.

You are part of a bigger community that doesn't understand your personal need to bag a few squirrels with an rapid firing gun.

Besides. I said nothing about the guns being removed. I said limit the number of bullets.

If you want to hunt, then you will just have to get very good at it. So in a way I'm helping you with this idea.

Edited by truethat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hunting isnt the issue. We have and need, the right to bare arms to protect our liberties and our republic. I think it was TrueThat who said the "world has changed enough" that we no longer need to worry about this. I disagree. There are plenty of power mad dictators in the world today. I think its a false sense of security that Americans have that make them think it could never happen here. Maybe (i stress maybe) we don't need them today, but what if we give our guns up and then need them tomorrow? Its impossible to know the future but every genocide has been preceded by gun bans and disarmaments. Its like the sayign goes, "you don't know what youve got untill its gone".

I don't even think guns are the issue in these mass shootings. There is something about our culture that make us the gun crime capital of the world. Are those tendencies going to vanish if we take away the guns or are they going to evolve into other forms of violence like suicide bombings?

25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA'

Crime rate plummeted after law required firearms for residents

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.

full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy was a known mental case, there is no way he should have been allowed to have access to guns.

Ted Nugent Sux ass, had to get that out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well technically he did obtain them illegally.

on the ATF Form 4473 there is a question thats is along the lines of "have you ever been deemed mentally defective or have you been committed to a mental institution".

So since he lied on that part of the form and thus owned them illegally.

Now as to truthat and your asinine idea or only allowing 5 rounds of ammunition a year per person is not even worth debating. You see, the problems is that anyone with a background of shooting and guns are either pro-gun, or at least understand them.

People that are anti-gun just dont understand them in the least bit, and don't understand shooters in the least bit, and never will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heres the deal people. No matter what laws or acts you put up to stop people from owning guns or bullets there will always be certain idiots who have no respect for this law so until we get rid of all these people there will always be gun problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say one bullet per year.

I said one loaded weapon per year.

In other words when you buy your gun you are allowed to fill it ONCE. Then if you empty your gun you need to come in and fill out a forum to show that you have and then you can fill it again ONCE.

I wasn't aware we were all Rambo trained and can just pick up a gun to defend ourselves no problem at all. So my rifle for example can hold 6 bullets if I put one in the chamber first... So I can go to the range to sight in my scope with 6 bullets... Drive all the way to the GOVERNMERT building to ask them for more bullets, do paperwork, wait to use my right? That's just insane.

But we can regulate the bullets without TOUCHING the constitution. There is no right to load up on bullets.

You have a right to a loaded gun. And you have one. You don't have a right to shoot your gun at whim and I think that is the part that people are missing.

There is a right to bullets however...

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 security of a free state is based on guns being used. You can't use a gun without bullets, unless you're some Superman person who can run, dodge bullets and more to smack something with the butt of your gun.

Yes, you do as well have a right to shoot your gun. It's the right of the people to keep and bear arms... That means 24/7/365. :yes:

We are talking about the US right? So there's no NEED to kill animals in hunting. Some families might CHOOSE to live this way but it is not a necessity.

For some it is. I know there is a guy that lives on the other side of town that hunts for the main purpose of putting meat on his families dinner table.

And as I said semi automatic weapons are NOT USED to kill squirrels. They are used to kill PEOPLE. That is what they are designed for.

You're wrong. There are lots of semi-auto weapons out there that are used for hunting. Though for squirrels semi-auto LR .22 rifles are most commonly used. Don't see too many people out there with a .223 hunting squirrels. :lol:

What about rolling pins? Baseball bats? Kitchen knives? Hammers? Chemical cleaners? They're all not designed for murder but they are all among the top murder weapons. Should we ban them all as well?

You are part of a bigger community that doesn't understand your personal need to bag a few squirrels with an rapid firing gun.

A bigger community that is American. It is American to have guns. :gun:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kevin You don't NEED to kill squirrels.

You WANT to. There is a difference.

We are talking about the US right? So there's no NEED to kill animals in hunting. Some families might CHOOSE to live this way but it is not a necessity.

This is the thing that kinda bugs me.

We DO need hunting. Why? Because we've gone and wiped out the majority of the natural predators that used to hunt the deer and turkey and etc. People aren't going to agree with there being a large reintroduction of wolves and cougars and such into populated areas (which is most of the US at this point), so what else can we do to keep animal populations in check? Hunting. It benefits us (food) and it benefits them (well, except for the ones that get shot. Heh...) by allowing a stable population that doesn't overtax the enviornment.

You don't agree with it? Fine. I don't really like hunting anymore either. That doesn't stop it from being necessary.

As for gun regulations, FluffyBunny and the rest have expressed my opinions well enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It tough one- gun control. If I lived in America I would probably own a hand gun. Why? To protect myself – from the army of narcissistic, paranoid ego maniacs already armed with guns.

I’m still shocked that a kid can walk into a gun store and buy two handguns and a whole stack of hollow tipped ammo.

“There you go son, you off shooting tin cans? Wait a minute, you could be a nutcase! Oh no my mistake, I see you ticked the box which said no previous mental heath problems. Hey you enjoy yourself oh and tell your friends about me and next time I’ll give you discount.”

Link to comment
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.