Gun owners living in pro-gun States (They Agree with the 2nd Amendment)

[Digital_Synapse]

That's what you're told so that's what you think. So show me a quote from any of the folks that I mentioned that say they want to repeal the 2nd amendment and want to ban all guns.

You sound like a NRA ad. The Democratic Party platform does not have anything about repealing the 2nd amendment in it. Honestly this is just stupid. Do you even know what it takes to get an amendment repealed? If you did you would know all of this is BS. It would be virtually impossible to repeal it. It requires the states to do it. Not the president, or congress. It will never happen. Nor do I want it too.

Assault weapons are not "all" guns. Fully automatic weapons are assault weapons and they are banned.

Amending the constitution is not the only way to stop people from owning guns. They can tax the shit out of them so you can’t afford it. They can make it so hard to get guns with red tape it might as well be impossible. California does this all the time. https://www.politifact.com/factchec...e-his-claim-presidential-candidate-beto-orou/

O’Rourke: "I am, if it's a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield.”

ALL Guns are designed to kill people, a gun that doesn’t kill is a pretty crappy gun. I watch all the debates, listen to all the interviews (In their entirety), it’s fucking exhausting. I can’t trust any media to give the facts anymore, I have to get it from the people that say it themselves.

Sponsored

 

[Bikeman315]

winchester 94 were used in WWI and WWII. the AR-15 was not used in war. "weapons that operate similarly" were used in war, yes. much like lever action firearms (such as the winchester 94) were used in war.

My bad but I was talking about 2021 not 1918 or 1945 . My father in law has a Winchester which I why I commented on it. I was also in error on the AR-15. I meant M16.

Suffice it to say there are differences in weapons. Honestly I have no issue with law abiding citizens getting these weapons. I just want to make it difficult enough so that there are no loopholes for the "LTLA" (less than law abiding) folks to get them. I also understand that there is no way to prevent all LTLA people from getting weapons. That wouldn't happen even if you did repeal the 2nd amendment. Another reason it will never happen.

I'm not here to argue gun control with you. Just trying to make you understand that so much of what you have heard about all Dems/Libs wanting to make all guns illegal is just "fake news". Enjoy your guns, no one is taking them away.

 

[Bikeman315]

Amending the constitution is not the only way to stop people from owning guns. They can tax the shit out of them so you can’t afford it. They can make it so hard to get guns with red tape it might as well be impossible. California does this all the time. https://www.politifact.com/factchec...e-his-claim-presidential-candidate-beto-orou/

O’Rourke: "I am, if it's a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield.”

ALL Guns are designed to kill people, a gun that doesn’t kill is a pretty crappy gun. I watch all the debates, listen to all the interviews (In their entirety), it’s fucking exhausting. I can’t trust any media to give the facts anymore, I have to get it from the people that say it themselves.

Man, I hear you regarding the media. The MSM is really starting to get ridiculous and Fox has been there forever. You really have to read between the lines to get at least some truth.

You can keep Beto. Talks to much and shoots from the hip to often. And i said before please do not believe everything you hear or read. No one is going to tax your guns away. The federal government can't and the states won't. I certainly wouldn't vote for any lawmaker that would try.

 

[GT Pony]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kennesaw-gun-law/

^^^
"In other words, Kennesaw residents were required to own guns … save for those Kennesaw residents who couldn’t afford guns, couldn’t use guns, couldn’t legally own guns, or simply didn’t want to have guns. Essentially, Kennesaw residents were never actually required to own guns ..."

 

[bigfoot21075]

shotguns are terrible choices for home defense.

11.5" AR pistol is a much better choice.

I disagree 100% due to wall penetration.

Snopes is in no way accurate. It is extremely biased and has an extreme liberal agenda. The law in Kennesaw has NOT been repealed according to also biased CNN as of 2018. Even they admit there is a very low crime rate, though of course they will never admit it is because of the gun laws, but that is fake news for ya.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/06/us/kennesaw-georgia-gun-ownership/index.html

Here is a more neutral take on it;\

https://dailycaller.com/2018/03/08/kennesaw-georgia-gun-ownership-cnn/

"Kennesaw, populated by 33,000 people, has only had “one murder in the last six years and a violent crime rate of below 2%.”

A law like this alone is a crime deterrent even if it is never enforced. Criminals VASTLY prefer unarmed victims over armed defenders.

 

[Norm Peterson]

I disagree 100% due to wall penetration.

This ^^^ . . . and not just the walls in your own house either.

I'm thinking a 590 Shockwave, possibly loaded with mini shotshells. More suitable for confined spaces than a long gun, limited likelihood of over-penetration, and I suspect the shot pattern would be a bit wider than that of a full-length 12.

A law like this alone is a crime deterrent even if it is never enforced. Criminals VASTLY prefer unarmed victims over armed defenders.

So in actual practice, it has amounted to being an advisory.


Norm

 

[Norm Peterson]

This one is right up there with "All anti-gun advocates want to abolish the 2nd amendment". First off being for gun control does not mean being anti gun. Being for gun control has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the repeal of the 2nd amendment.

So far, I can agree with you.

The problem is that the progressive agenda that would start out asking for truly reasonable regulations ends up never being satisfied. That regulatory creep can effectively approach abolishment is what I think is feared the most.

So let's see who wants to take away your 2nd amendment rights

Michael Bloomberg?

I learned a lot about gun rights when I moved from NJ to SC three years ago. The cultures between the two states are 180 degrees apart. I've learned that the vast majority of gun owners are good decent people who own guns here in SC the way folks in NJ own golf clubs.

​

Vast majority of legal gun owners, anyway . . . and that's probably true in every state.​

That said, yes I believe that in today's insane society there need to be some safeguards. Maybe we really need to look at regulating military weapons in some form. Maybe we find a better way to insure the good folks get the guns they want and the one shooting up our schools, business, houses of worship and shopping malls don't. All this can be done without touching the 2nd amendment. People just want it to happen.

And finally, yes this is me. I'm one of you.

I don't think military vs nonmilitary makes any difference to a responsible gun owner. That said, perhaps 18 is too young for a wider range of firearms possession than is currently the case. For you and certainly me, 18 is too far in the past to remember what it was like for all of our friends to be that age even if we could remember what it was like for ourselves.


Norm

 

[Bikeman315]

A law like this alone is a crime deterrent even if it is never enforced. Criminals VASTLY prefer unarmed victims over armed defenders.

Do you really think this law has prevented crime? Do you really think that the criminals think that everyone in Kennesaw has a weapon? It has absolutely nothing to do with a politically driven law that no one who lives there takes seriously.

The problem is that the progressive agenda that would start out asking for truly reasonable regulations ends up never being satisfied. That regulatory creep can effectively approach abolishment is what I think is feared the most.

Please do not confuse the progressive wing agenda with that of the Democratic Party. Yes, of course, there are those who would want to ban all guns. But keep in mind that there are Republicans that agree with a level of gun control. It’s not all or nothing as groups like the NRA would like it’s members to believe.

Michael Bloomberg?

Nope, try again

https://www.mikebloomberg2020.com/policies/gun-safety

 

[Norm Peterson]

Do you really think this law has prevented crime?

To the extent that it has probably caused criminals to at least think twice about committing their particular crime, probably. There's a increased likelihood that he'll meet armed resistance in Kennesaw than in, say, Evesham NJ.

Please do not confuse the progressive wing agenda with that of the Democratic Party. Yes, of course, there are those who would want to ban all guns. But keep in mind that there are Republicans that agree with a level of gun control. It’s not all or nothing as groups like the NRA would like it’s members to believe.

I'm looking at the nature of progressivism as being inherently unsatisfied with small steps/corrections. As an example, NJ used to allow 15 round magazines when magazine capacities weren't limited that low in most other places. Now it's down to 10. There's a red flag law on the books now that has the potential for abuse.

Nope, try again

https://www.mikebloomberg2020.com/policies/gun-safety

His 4th bullet point amounts to flat-out confiscation. It completely ignores the matter of responsible gun ownership.
His 3rd bullet point is left wide open for unreasonable enforcement (search and seizure). Remember it was Mr. B. who really got behind stop-and-frisk (with iffy levels of probable cause), and his behavior with respect to the 1st Amendment was a bit questionable while he was campaigning. He scares me as much for those reasons as the socialists do for theirs.

Mike’s Plan:

• Build a more effective background check system
• Keep guns out of the wrong hands
• Tackle daily gun violence in the hardest-hit communities
• Ban assault weapons, protect kids, and protect schools
• Hold the gun industry accountable and elevate government’s response to the gun violence crisis

Norm

 

[Bikeman315]

To the extent that it has probably caused criminals to at least think twice about committing their particular crime, probably. There's a increased likelihood that he'll meet armed resistance in Kennesaw than in, say, Evesham NJ.

This "law" no more caused criminals in Kennesaw to think twice vs those in neighboring Alpharetta or Roswell (I have friends in both of these towns). Read the actual law. It's bogus. It's political hay. A law without teeth is not a law.

His 4th bullet point amounts to flat-out confiscation. It completely ignores the matter of responsible gun ownership.
His 3rd bullet point is left wide open for unreasonable enforcement (search and seizure). Remember it was Mr. B. who really got behind stop-and-frisk (with iffy levels of probable cause), and his behavior with respect to the 1st Amendment was a bit questionable while he was campaigning. He scares me as much for those reasons as the socialists do for theirs.

Norm you reading between lines that are a mile wide. You can take what he says anyway you want but that doesn't change what he is saying. I lived in New York/New Jersey for 65 years. Yes folks up there look at gun violence differently than in other places. If someone from a rural area were dropped into the middle of a "High Crime" area in New York City they would shit their pants. Even armed they wouldn't stand a chance. Stop & Frisk proved to be iffy, but it worked. It just wasn't politically correct.

Now back to the point, which is about banning all weapons and repealing the 2nd amendment. Mike Bloomberg has never ever said he wants to do either. You can infer whatever you want but he has never said it. Oh wait, isn't that what Trump supporters claim Dem/Libs to to him, infer. Sorry you can't have it both ways.

 

[Phoenix]

I disagree 100% due to wall penetration.

This ^^^ . . . and not just the walls in your own house either.

https://www.gunsandammo.com/editori...e-is-223-the-best-home-defense-caliber/250411

from freaking FUDD city guns and ammo.

Proponents of the pistol for home defense like to think that because it's "just" a pistol round, overpenetration really won't be an issue. Such is not the case. Drywall sheets and hollow-core doors (which are what you'll find in the majority of homes and apartments in this country) offer almost no resistance to bullets. Unless brick or cinderblock was used somewhere in your construction, any pistol cartridge powerful enough to be thought of as suitable for self-defense is likely to fly completely through every wall in your abode. In fact, hollowpoint pistol bullets tend to plug up as they go through drywall, turning them — in effect — into round-nose bullets. Round buckshot pellets are just as bad, and shotgun slugs are worse.

These same concerns about overpenetration are what kept people away from considering the rifle for home defense. For years many people just assumed they knew what would happen to a rifle bullet fired indoors — it would go through every wall available and then exit the building. While armor-piercing and FMJ ammunition is specifically designed to do this, extensive testing has shown that light, extremely fast-moving .223 projectiles (including FMJs) often fragment when they hit a barrier as soft as thin plywood.

 

[Deleted member 35644]

shotguns are terrible choices for home defense.

11.5" AR pistol is a much better choice.

Much better odds of striking your target if you have to defend yourself in the dark, without killing your next door neighbor, if you use a shot gun. Use the right shot, and it's minimal damage to the inside of the house. I considered a pistol until I asked the advice of a police officer.

 

[Phoenix]

Much better odds of striking your target if you have to defend yourself in the dark, without killing your next door neighbor, if you use a shot gun. Use the right shot, and it's minimal damage to the inside of the house. I considered a pistol until I asked the advice of a police officer.

have you actually ever shot a shotgun? followup shots are awful with them. i cant get 5-6 a zone hits in 2 seconds with my sbr. try that with a shotgun.

most police officers are terrible people to solicit firearms advice from. if you go to the range once a month and fire one box of 9mm, you shoot more than most police officers in america.

 

[Phoenix]

this is the last post ill make on this forum regarding firearms.

shotguns are for birds and breaching. the end.

handguns are good but are simply a means to get to your carbine. the reason they are so prevalent is concealability. handguns and revolvers were almost as regulated as machine guns in the NFA of 1934 but eventually they werent.

the modern 11.5" AR-15 pistol is good enough to handle 95% of situations you may need a firearm in.

 

[Deleted member 35644]

Rather not go to jail for killing an innocent while defending my home. My neighbors don't deserve to be shot in their sleep. Hope none of you guys are ever actually faced with this situation, and I'm glad I don't live next door to you when / if you are.

Sponsored