Why do law abiding citizens have a problem with gun control?

Your way of thinking is restricted to one goal in life...that is to make life taking tools available to everyone with consequence and without regulation. You are a destroyer of life, not a person who fosters the growth of protection. Training and regulation like that used to make cars worthwhile and safe modes of transportation is a foreign concept because you think you are a special breed and no one else has the answers. You need to expand your thought process and get out into the real world. Your fear has overwhelmed your thought process. Be a scientist, not a mundane repeater of trite phrases that have less relavance for today. Stop repeating what it was like in 1776.

 

So you think you are the self appointed guardian of relevance eh? I say address the real problem which are people, you say inanimate objects are the problem. Are you even aware of existing law?

 

When you are losing the debate, you make up what others say so you can argue v that. Arms have always been regulated in more populated areas, even since colonial times in the militia groups. If you knew history, you would no that.

 

In other words, you still think you know what you are talking about. Are you aware of existing law?

 

There is no gun show loophole. The laws that govern gun sales at gun shows are exactly the same as the laws that govern gun sales outside of gun shows. One thing that irritates us is laws supported and suggested by people who are totally ignorant about the subject. The gun show loophole myth being one of those pieces of ignorance. The reason I am against increased gun control is that it doesn't do anything to stop criminals from getting guns, but is a major pain for law-abiding people. There are no over powered weapons legally available without a lot of bureaucracy.

First, machine guns are highly restricted, and have been since 1934. No machine guns have been allowed to be added to the legally available machine guns since 1986. In addition, only a handful of crimes have been committed by legally owned machine guns since 1934. Some of those crimes have been by police officers who "borrowed" a duty machine gun to use moonlighting--as an armed robber. Again, you are pontificating against something you honestly know nothing about. Please do some research and then post.

 

They are all but illegal. To own a legal machine gun, you first have to find one--they haven't added any to the supply since about 1986, so, the hardest part of getting a legal machine gun is to find one of the few legal machine guns on the market. A cheap one in bad condition runs $4,000 (and probably would take that much to restore to usable condition). A routine M-16 is about $10,000 minimum. Then you have to apply to the federal government to permission to own one. You have to get an affidavit of good character from the local police department, get fingerprinted and background checked, and pay a $250 fee on top. This has been the law since about 1986, and since 1934, you had to do all of the above except find an old machine gun. The last I looked it up (maybe 5 years ago) there were about 4 crimes committed with legal machine guns, and one of those was a Miami SWAT team officer who used a department submachine gun to commit armed robberies.

Need is not a question when it comes to rights. There is no need to practice a religion, or need to have free speech.

 

What gun show loophole? The laws for buying guns at a gun show are exactly the same as the laws for buying a gun outside of a gun show--background checks and all.

I could live with a universal background check, but realistically, it's a foolish thing. It will only cause law-abiding people like myself to have to jump through a few more hoops. It won't do a thing to effect criminals or the misuse of guns.

- - - Updated - - -

There have been only a handful of crimes committed by legal machine guns. It's silly to ban them. As I point out in another post, the process to buy a legal machine gun is hard, and they are extremely expensive. They aren't a danger to society.
BTW, a machine gun and a semi-auto are different. The majority of new weapons sold are semi-autos. Why? They are more convenient because they function better. That's why almost every police officer these days has a semi-auto handgun at their hip.

 

I am stunned at some posters here that have absolutely no knowledge of the existing laws regarding firearm ownership.They just prattle on and throw made up "facts" they heard from some radio talking head.

When discussing guns with liberals, it all comes down to this,

White on White violence = gun nuts
White on Black violence = Racism
Black on White violence = gun violence problem
Black on Black violence = More funding for inner cities and education…

 

A machine gun is not a weapon of mass destruction. In military terms, it's a small arm.

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD or WoMD) is a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to human-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere. A machine gun simply doesn't qualify for that.

Love the way gun banners invent such new terms that are simply intentionally inaccurate uses of actual legal terms. Talk about a lack of intellectualy honesty.

 

Exactly. It bothers me when you get these intellectual lightweights who have no background on the subject, and don't even attempt to get background knowledge on a subject pontificate about what should be done. They should have at least the intellectual honesty to do basic research before posting.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly. The President even commuted the sentences of prior convicted felons who were convicted not only of drug crimes but of owning a weapon as a felon.

 

No they're not;You just have to have a class 3 license.

I think that unless you're a convicted felon,people should be able to have machine guns and suppressors without having having to jump through any hoops.

 

The subject was need and rights. This is a parallel argument. Pornography harms a lot of people in different ways. Why not ban it, like you would like to ban machine guns (which are responsible for almost no crimes).

 

Are you against people using high cost recreational equipment and actually enjoying it? How is this a mockery? It's just people having fun with their expensive toys.

The problem is that it turns a right into a privilege. The problem is that I, as a law-abiding citizen, will go through the background checks, etc., when I know that the criminal element won't obey it.

 

The Framers wanted an armed populace. They recognized a need for defense--be it of self, family, community, state or country. That is why we have the right to bear arms. I've been part of a temporary armed militia. After Hurricane Ivan, my neighborhood had no power, no phone (not even cell service) and no way to contact the outside world without walking or driving. The guys in the neighborhood all watched out for the neighborhood, and we were armed. Nobody in the U.S. is in a situation where in the next 24 hours they couldn't be out of power and communication--nobody. There is a need for weapons for self defense. Currently, the best weapon for personal self defense is the modern semi-automatic pistol (i.e. the same thing most policemen have on their belts at almost all times). The best weapon for home defense is either the 12-gauge repeating shotgun (pump or semi-auto) or the modern AR type rifle. Currently I have a 12-gauge and a 9mm pistol as my home defense weapons. When I get old and feebler (and can't use the others well), I will buy the lightest AR I can find for home defense. It's the best choice for weaker individuals, IMHO, over a shotgun or a pistol.

I am fine with the current unobtrusive background check--the NICS one. It is not a big pain in the butt, and doesn't take too much time. That said, I'm against requiring private sellers (unlicensed that is) to use the system. It has too much information in it, that the public as a whole shouldn't have access to. I'm against any other gun control, because it's not going to stop gang-bangers and other criminals from getting guns, but will be a pain for me.

 

Please post a unbiased website. Brady is full of mistruths. I wouldn't insult you by posting an NRA website for informational purposes.

In terms of militia, current federal statute defines two types of militia--the organized militia ( the National Guard) and the unorganized militia (which is composed of all men between the ages of 17 and 45).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

 

Well, Trump is a liberal like yourself, and he has almost no background on most subjects outside of adultery and real estate development.

"Over the top assault weapons" are one of the favored guns of wild boar hunters. Wild boar, in case you didn't know, are an invasive species that does billions of dollars of damage to crops and natural resources in the U.S. An "assault weapon" is the ideal gun to use for hunting these.

There is no bill of needs, there's a bill of rights.

- - - Updated - - -

Newtown was a disaster because of the mental health system. If Mrs. Lanza had less bureaucratic hoops to go through to have had her son committed to a mental hospital (which she was in process of doing when he killed her), none of us would know the name of that town.

Brady is anti-gun propaganda, and most of the info is biased and dated.

 

People are protecting their families with ARs. More and more, home defense experts are recommending them for home defense--everything that make a gun good to use in crime also makes it good for home and self defense--it's just the way things work.

Here are some examples of ARs in self defense:
http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-02/news/mn-1281_1_police-car
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...d-after-seeing-their-victim-holding-an-ar-15/
[video]https://youtu.be/QLhp6OGq2ko[/video]
http://www.webcitation.org/6GGutVu4o
http://www.montgomerynews.com/artic...7549f7bcb60865299808.txt? viewmode=fullstory
http://www.wral.com/homeowner-shoots-intruder-in-vance-county-break-in/13638825/


The thing is, according to the FBI, in 2014, there were only 248 murders by rifle (all rifles, not just semi-automatic AR type rifles) (out of over 8,000 gun murders and over 11,000 total murders). That's approximately 3% of gun murders and 2% of all murders. That's less than murders by hands (660) or by knives (1567).

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....le_8 _murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls
Note the above is a government website, not a biased political organization's website.


Anyway, semi-automatics, currently, are the best firearms for most applications. They have been on the civilian market for over 100 years, and were used by civilians before they were used by the military.

- - - Updated - - -

AR-15s, yes. I've posted half a dozen examples.

BTW, flamethrowers aren't even regulated..... That said, I can't imagine a much more impractical weapon. They are heavy (two big tanks on your back), and even the military doesn't use them anymore. The whole flamethrower thing is trolling, IMHO.

 

There is no such thing as a Class lll License to purchase Machine Guns, there should be, you pass the background check each time for each weapon, pay a $200 transfer Tax, and you get an approval from BATFE with your Tax stamp form, and you take it to your Dealer and pick up your gun.

 

An AR15 is practical for home defense for a variety of reasons. First, it's a fairly small and light rifle. Second, they are sufficiently powerful to stop an intruder, but with the right ammunition, won't be likely to shoot through too walls. Third, they can easily be mounted with flashlights, low-light sights, etc. Fourth, they are fairly low-powered for a rifle, so they have low recoil--making them easy to use by smaller and weaker people. Fifth, a rifle is easier for most people to shoot accurately than a pistol. When I get too old to use a shotgun or handgun for self defense, I'm buying an AR. More and more home defense experts are recommending them, as more and more people buy them. They are now among the most commonly bought rifles on the market.

 

Law abiding citizens don't have a problem with "gun control", law abiding citizens have a problem with people trying to circumvent the particular law which states:

(Emphasis is mine...).

 

I really like how the AR rifle is the most easy to customize gun, and how available parts of all configurations and calibers, like was said about Burger King, have it your way, or was that McDonalds ???

 

Amen, every free adult American should be allowed to own a gun to protect their homes and families.. period.. as it is a constitutional right of all Americans

 

And not just in the Home, on the road, anywhere a person happens to be, Free Men and Women should always bear Arms and not be treated as Criminals.

 

Simple:
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

/thread

 

I was corrected some post ago and have conceded the point. However, I know or have known probably hundreds of people, you really don't want them having access, much less owning machine guns. Mentally disturbed to simply control freaks.

My point in even posting on this thread, is regulating and enforcing, which IMO is NOT the Federal Governments responsibility. If names for ineligible people come from States or even local governments, I won't appose a National Registry, for a central point, but not for the Federal. Said another way, no member of a CG, President on down can enter a name or group of people to keep or limit fire arms to... I understand States or even local governments could limit FA purchases for political reasons, but then they are subject to quick removal and/or legal reaction, where most Federal's are not, at least quickly...