PDA

View Full Version : A Few Words About Gun Control



fontman
04-18-07, 09:17 PM
A FEW WORDS ABOUT GUN CONTROL <br />
By Edward L. Daley <br />
April 18, 2007 <br />
<br />
It was only a matter of time before anti-gun nuts all over the country started calling for stiffer gun control measures in the...

Gary Hall
04-18-07, 09:23 PM
Just to let you know your thoughts are much appreciated. Gary Hall, Tyler, TX

sgt tony
04-18-07, 09:38 PM
Here Here. I agree with you all the way

10thzodiac
04-18-07, 09:58 PM
I believe in 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.

That is, unless you kill me http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/sad/sad0125.gif

semperfi170
04-18-07, 11:03 PM
Thank you for the article:thumbup: It still seems logical to me that when you prevent (by oppressive laws) people from owning and carrying guns, then the only ones who have them will be crazies, criminals, and terrorists.

The old saying is still true: People kill people, not the weapons. That being said if one the students or professors had been carrying, the killer would have probably been stopped sooner.

testforecho2112
04-19-07, 12:58 AM
Amen brother, amen!

marinegreen
04-19-07, 01:38 AM
Affirmative fontman !!

hrscowboy
04-19-07, 01:41 AM
OK I am gonna pizzzzzzzzzz some people off give me one good reason why any person needs a assault rifle other than Law enforcement or Military personnel. And dont give me no lame arse reason for hunting cause that aint flyin with me. I have killed alot of deer and other animals with a bolt action 308 or 06 my entire life..

davblay
04-19-07, 01:41 AM
Thank you for the article:thumbup: It still seems logical to me that when you prevent (by oppressive laws) people from owning and carrying guns, then the only ones who have them will be crazies, criminals, and terrorists.

The old saying is still true: People kill people, not the weapons. That being said if one the students or professors had been carrying, the killer would have probably been stopped sooner.

I couldn't have said it better! :beer:

davblay
04-19-07, 01:43 AM
OK I am gonna pizzzzzzzzzz some people off give me one good reason why any person needs a assault rifle other than Law enforcement or Military personnel. And dont give me no lame arse reason for hunting cause that aint flyin with me. I have killed alot of deer and other animals with a bolt action 308 or 06 my entire life..

I can't wait to read the responses to this point!

mrbsox
04-19-07, 06:24 AM
As usual, whenever somebody murders a bunch of innocent people in cold blood, the first thing leftists try to do is disarm everyone who didn't do it.


Copied from an article on AOL this morning.
I've said for years, that this was a little town with open eyes, rational thought, and EFFECTIVE gun legislation.:thumbup:

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/us-town-requires-residents-to-own-guns/20070418233109990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Updated:2007-04-18 23:45:25
U.S. Town Requires Residents to Own Guns
By Matthew Bigg
Reuters
KENNESAW, Georgia (April 18) - The Virginia Tech killings have set off calls for tighter U.S. gun laws but anyone wanting to know why those demands likely will make little headway should visit Kennesaw, a town where owning a gun is both popular and mandatory.

The town north of Atlanta had little prominence until it passed a gun ordinance in 1982 that required all heads of a household to own a firearm and ammunition.

Kennesaw's law was a response to Morton Grove, Illinois, which had passed a gun ban earlier that year as a step to reduce crime.

But it also was an affirmation of what gun advocates say is a blanket U.S. constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, for citizens to keep and bear arms. Gun opponents challenge that right and say the language in the Constitution is open to interpretation.

The Kennesaw law has endured as the town's population has swelled to about 30,000 from 5,000 in 1982.

"When the law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime ... and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then," said police Lt. Craig Graydon. "We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area.

Residents say they are comfortable with the image the gun law projects on the city as a bastion of gun freedom.

"There's been no move to get rid of the law . Why would you?" said Robert Jones, president of the Kennesaw Historical Society. "The law is a great tourist attraction. It's the town with the Gun Law .

"People in Europe feel they need to be protected by the government. People in the U.S. feel they need to be protected from the government," said Jones, the owner of a .357-caliber Magnum.

FAMILY TRADITION

Many U.S. citizens see gun ownership as an essential freedom on a par with free speech and the view is particularly strong in rural areas and the South where sport hunting is often a family tradition.

In a bid to expand gun rights, a bill was introduced in Georgia's state legislature to allow individuals with no criminal record or history of mental illness to conceal a weapon in their car.

The state Senate adjourned debate on the bill on Tuesday, fearing it would send the wrong message in the wake of the Virginia rampage.

Dent "Wildman" Myers, 76, styles himself as a keeper of the flame when it comes to Kennesaw's gun ordinance. His downtown shop contains a cornucopia of artifacts, including old uniforms and dozens of flags of the Confederacy that fought the Union in part in defense of slavery in the Civil War. At the back is a Ku Klux Klan outfit with a noose and a hood.

There also are posters praising defenders of the white race, White Power CDs and a sign that reads: "No Dogs Allowed, No Negroes, No Mexicans." Someone had crossed out the first part of the sign and added "Dogs Allowed."

Myers said he wanted to protect the values that made the town and the South distinct from other parts of the United States.

GUNS AS TOOLS

"They destroyed anything historic and replaced it with the PC (politically correct) stuff. It's become a cookie cutter town," Myers said, his hands resting lightly on two .45-caliber guns at his hips. He said he considered his guns to be tools, much like a rake or a shovel.

Since the Virginia Tech shootings, some conservative U.S. talk radio hosts have rejected attempts to link the massacre to the availability of guns, arguing that had students been allowed to carry weapons on campus someone might have been able to shoot the killer.

Without guns the students of Virginia Tech were "26,000 sitting ducks," said Chris Krok of Atlanta 's WSB radio in a view echoed by many residents of Kennesaw.

When the town's gun law was passed, about 70 percent of households likely owned a gun , Graydon said. But Atlanta commuters have since swelled the town's population and gun ownership now is about 50 percent.

An amendment to the gun ownership law grants exceptions to convicted felons, conscientious objectors and those who cannot afford a gun . No one has ever been prosecuted for failure to own a firearm, Graydon said.

The law may deter criminals but proactive policing and close police liaison with community and business groups were the main reasons why crime has stayed low, he said.

Some residents said they found the law objectionable or silly and simply ignored it.

But Linda Warman, who works in a Kennesaw shop, said she lived alone and was taking no chances.

"I wouldn't hesitate to use it," she said of the gun she keeps loaded with hollow-point bullets. "My little .22. It'll do whatever I want it to."


Terry

hrscowboy
04-19-07, 07:28 AM
Come on you guys where is my responses

Kegler300
04-19-07, 07:37 AM
If your son or daughter had been in one of those classrooms at VT, would you, as a loving parent, rather have them cowering under a desk waiting to be executed, or legally armed and capable of saving themself and others?

Can't wait to hear someone with a "Dukakis" response to this question...

10thzodiac
04-19-07, 07:38 AM
Come on you guys where is my responses

<TABLE class=tborder cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR title="Post 235702" vAlign=top><TD class=alt1 align=middle width=125>hrscowboy</TD><TD class=alt2>OK I am gonna pizzzzzzzzzz some people off give me one good reason why any person needs a assault rifle other than Law enforcement or Military personnel. And dont give me no lame arse reason for hunting cause that aint flyin with me. I have killed alot of deer and other animals with a bolt action 308 or 06 my entire life..</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

About one in four U.S. Marines would be willing to fire upon American citizens in a government gun confiscation program, according to the results of a survey undertaken nearly a year ago at a Marine Corps base in southern California. http://www.ssrsi.org/os1/BBStext/shootus.htm

Zulu 36
04-19-07, 08:04 AM
10Z, this "survey" was done in 1994 and the article you linked is dated 1995. Without reading the actual survey instrument I can't give an informed opinion as to it's validity. In any event, it is old and more recent events will have affected the data. You've cited this survey previously and I've brought up these same objections.

I also don't know how the instrument was administered. If a uniformed Navy commander suddenly shows up and starts telling groups of Marines to fill out his form, I would call that a serious case of sampling bias.

Also not broken down, either intentionally by the article author or not sampled by the investigator, were the ranks of the Marines willing to confiscate firearms and the ranks of those not willing to do so. This is an important factor is this kind of survey. If the majority of the willing to confiscate guns or swear allegience to the UN were non-rates, but the majority of the un-willing were NCOs, SNCOs, and officers, what does this survey really mean?

Nothing except he was trying to get his master's degree.

GunnyL
04-19-07, 08:09 AM
Anybody notice that the same day Hui killed all the Students and Teachers in Virginia, there was a Mayor shot to death in Japan? Japan is a country where the average citizen cannot legally own a gun. It is just proof that taking guns away from Legal Citizens is not going to protect us from Gun violence. Criminals will find a way to get a gun!
Now, Hui was not a U.S. Citizen but a Resident Alien. I wasn't aware that 2nd Amendment rights applied to Non-Citizens and should they?

GunnyL

Zulu 36
04-19-07, 08:14 AM
OK I am gonna pizzzzzzzzzz some people off give me one good reason why any person needs a assault rifle other than Law enforcement or Military personnel. And dont give me no lame arse reason for hunting cause that aint flyin with me. I have killed alot of deer and other animals with a bolt action 308 or 06 my entire life..

OK, I'll bite. Because I can and because I like to shoot them.

And since I'm not a hunter, we should outlaw bolt action rifles - they were assault rifles once. That takes care of my Mauser 98k made in 1937. I guess my old single shot Martini-Henry Mk IV should go to the scrap heap. It was an assault rifle in 1887, along with the 18" long blade sergeant's bayonet. I'm sure someone has an old Civil War issued rifled musket, that too was an assault rifle. Or perhaps an old Brown Bess musket. We could keep going.

Zulu 36
04-19-07, 08:18 AM
Anybody notice that the same day Hui killed all the Students and Teachers in Virginia, there was a Mayor shot to death in Japan? Japan is a country where the average citizen cannot legally own a gun. It is just proof that taking guns away from Legal Citizens is not going to protect us from Gun violence. Criminals will find a way to get a gun!
Now, Hui was not a U.S. Citizen but a Resident Alien. I wasn't aware that 2nd Amendment rights applied to Non-Citizens and should they?

GunnyL

You forgot to mention Gunny that the shooter in a Japan was a, surprise-surprise, a mobster. Gee, how could a criminal get a handgun in a country where private handgun ownership is totally illegal? They must need more gun control laws.

Ironrider
04-19-07, 08:33 AM
Awright, I'm going with Zulu on atleast part of this. Because I CAN. Add into this, that Las Vegas has been found to be one of the most dangerous cities on the planet. I keep a CAR-15 locked and loaded. I work nights, and my daughter is home alone. ( Yeah she's been trained like we wuz).

Now I'll disagree with Zulu, as there ain't nothing better than a 30-06 Springfield er an 8mm Mauser for target practice.

Jim
:D

outlaw3179
04-19-07, 08:38 AM
Because I can Cowboy. Because its my right. Because Ive earned the right , it wasn't just given to me. I dont want anyone to tell me what I cant or cannot have. Semper Fi.

YLDNDN6
04-19-07, 08:56 AM
Hrscowboy...in response to your post, my only reply is that within the confines of our great nation, and under the protection of the constitution that we serve and defend, honest, law-abiding citizens have a right to have them. I can only speak for myself in this matter, however, when I say that MY semi-automatic "Assault-type" rifle has never been used in the commission of a crime or to deny any other citizen of this great nation the right to enjoy his or her protected freedoms in any manner. My rifle, as with any firearm, is merely an instrument, an object. I use mine to shoot cans and punch holes in paper targets at various distances. My rifle will only ever be considered a "weapon" should I be forced to utilize it as such, in the defense of my country, my family, or myself. Until such time, my rifle is merely a means by which I entertain myself and those friends who choose to fire it with me at the range. Assault-type rifles are not any more deadly than any other type of rifle, or handgun, unless they fall into the wrong hands. This same logic can be applied to knives, rope, baseball bats, golf clubs, or any other object which can be readily picked up and swung with enough force to cause bodily harm or death. The student at Virginia Tech didn't use an assault rifle. He used a 9mm pistol and a .22 cal pistol, both semi-automatic, both with high capacity magazines and easily reloadable. I happen to have a couple of those too. Mine will never see that type of use, as they are simply objects with which I amuse myself. No different in that respect from the golf clubs and baseball bats and other objects that I have around my home. The notion of disarming the public completely, or banning decent, law-abiding American citizens from owning semi-automatic, assault-type rifles is a slap in the face of those of us who can responsibly own and secure a firearm of any kind. This nation already has gun control policies in place which are designed to keep firearms out of the hands of those who would use them for illegal or immoral purposes. Beyond the law, individuals have to accept personal responsibility for how their firearms are used, maintained and secured. The fault within the system which allowed a clinically diagnosed psychopath to walk into a store and purchase handguns does not lie with me or any other owners of assault-type weapons. Taking my rifles away would not have stopped what happened there, and will not stop class-d people from pulling something like that again in the future.

The floor is yours, sir...

drumcorpssnare
04-19-07, 09:18 AM
YLDNDN6- That sir, is possibly the most articulate argument against a ban on assault type weapons, ever posted on this website. Well done!
drumcorpssnare:usmc:

hrscowboy
04-19-07, 09:21 AM
Gentlemen i never said to disarm the public what so ever as i will never ever release my guns i am just saying why do we need semi automatic rifles or semi automatic pistols in the first place and not because you have the right to own one. You can die with a bolt action just as fast as you can die with a semi automatic. I think if you really look it all it comes down too look how many bullets my gun can shoot at one time and no one or anything can stand up to it.. Another words one big power trip..

10thzodiac
04-19-07, 09:25 AM
10Z, this "survey" was done in 1994 and the article you linked is dated 1995. Without reading the actual survey instrument I can't give an informed opinion as to it's validity. In any event, it is old and more recent events will have affected the data. You've cited this survey previously and I've brought up these same objections.

I also don't know how the instrument was administered. If a uniformed Navy commander suddenly shows up and starts telling groups of Marines to fill out his form, I would call that a serious case of sampling bias.

Also not broken down, either intentionally by the article author or not sampled by the investigator, were the ranks of the Marines willing to confiscate firearms and the ranks of those not willing to do so. This is an important factor is this kind of survey. If the majority of the willing to confiscate guns or swear allegience to the UN were non-rates, but the majority of the un-willing were NCOs, SNCOs, and officers, what does this survey really mean?

Nothing except he was trying to get his master's degree.

So hypothetically, are you alluding if the order came down as so many here fear, the Marines would refuse to confiscate guns from Americans http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/images/icons/icon5.gif

killerinstinct
04-19-07, 09:26 AM
well i think the reason we are allowed to own guns is another way to keep the government in check and not try to take over and form a fascist government, since an armed people arent people you wanna **** off... If they allow us to only keep weapons that arent up to par to what is available than would it undermine what our founders intenended the 23nd amendment to do?

10thzodiac
04-19-07, 09:38 AM
well i think the reason we are allowed to own guns is another way to keep the government in check and not try to take over and form a fascist government, since an armed people arent people you wanna **** off... If they allow us to only keep weapons that arent up to par to what is available than would it undermine what our founders intenended the 23nd amendment to do?


Killerinstinct is right, but it is the 2nd amendment
http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Flags/usa-flag-89.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
<CENTER> </CENTER>

Old Marine
04-19-07, 09:53 AM
The bottom line is that this crazy SOB was a resident alien that was having troubles and the government who let him come to the U.S.A. should have revoked his green card and sent him back to Korea a long time ago. The U.S. Government is very consistant in letting these aliens come to our country and be educated in our schools.

Someone in our government needs to grab a hold of their nads and put a stop to these aliens coming in here, getting educated and doing whatever they do. If they become citizens, then they have the right to an education in the U.S.A.

If my children were young enough to be in school, it would surley be in a home school.

We need to go back to the old west days where everyone who wanted to strapped a pistol to their leg and went about their business.

YLDNDN6
04-19-07, 10:11 AM
Hrscowboy...I apologize for inferring that YOU suggested disarming America...It was merely my intention to highlight the fact that anti-firearm lobbyists and organizations in our nation flock to this notion every time something tragic occurs which involves a firearm of any sort. Also, I must commend you for opening what could very well prove to be an interesting and long running debate topic within these forums. Everybody needs a little controversy now and then!

Drumcorpssnare...thank you. I have polished my pro-firearm debating skills over years of having to justify to some of my family members the presence of "so damn many" firearms under one roof. Hey, some guys have stacks of video games and porno flicks...I have guns...where's the problem??? lol

davblay
04-19-07, 10:13 AM
Hrscowboy...in response to your post, my only reply is that within the confines of our great nation, and under the protection of the constitution that we serve and defend, honest, law-abiding citizens have a right to have them. I can only speak for myself in this matter, however, when I say that MY semi-automatic "Assault-type" rifle has never been used in the commission of a crime or to deny any other citizen of this great nation the right to enjoy his or her protected freedoms in any manner. My rifle, as with any firearm, is merely an instrument, an object. I use mine to shoot cans and punch holes in paper targets at various distances. My rifle will only ever be considered a "weapon" should I be forced to utilize it as such, in the defense of my country, my family, or myself. Until such time, my rifle is merely a means by which I entertain myself and those friends who choose to fire it with me at the range. Assault-type rifles are not any more deadly than any other type of rifle, or handgun, unless they fall into the wrong hands. This same logic can be applied to knives, rope, baseball bats, golf clubs, or any other object which can be readily picked up and swung with enough force to cause bodily harm or death. The student at Virginia Tech didn't use an assault rifle. He used a 9mm pistol and a .22 cal pistol, both semi-automatic, both with high capacity magazines and easily reloadable. I happen to have a couple of those too. Mine will never see that type of use, as they are simply objects with which I amuse myself. No different in that respect from the golf clubs and baseball bats and other objects that I have around my home. The notion of disarming the public completely, or banning decent, law-abiding American citizens from owning semi-automatic, assault-type rifles is a slap in the face of those of us who can responsibly own and secure a firearm of any kind. This nation already has gun control policies in place which are designed to keep firearms out of the hands of those who would use them for illegal or immoral purposes. Beyond the law, individuals have to accept personal responsibility for how their firearms are used, maintained and secured. The fault within the system which allowed a clinically diagnosed psychopath to walk into a store and purchase handguns does not lie with me or any other owners of assault-type weapons. Taking my rifles away would not have stopped what happened there, and will not stop class-d people from pulling something like that again in the future.

The floor is yours, sir...

Marines, we humans, have been killing each other since Cain and Able! We use whatever method available to do so! These Automatic rifles would not have been envented if it were not for war! Having said that, people talk about Law Abiding, and proprer use of these guns. When in reallity, if we were Law abiding citizens, we would not own one, as it is against the law! As far a proper use, well we don't live in a war zone, so where's the distinction? The point is, we can find every reason in the world to justify having these guns when in reallity, we love to shoot them. There is nothing like the feeling you get when you fire an automatic rifle and shoot 20 rounds in no time at all, to see the distruction it causes, the feeling of power we have.

As far as properly stored and keeping them out of criminals hands, well, think about this. If someone breaks into your house, while you are away, they take the Assault rifles. They return to your friends house and they are home, someone gets killed, they are using your rifles! Who armed them? The point is this, in any area where all available weapons are legal, the odds go way down that they will cause as much damage as the assault rifles would! The law abiding man gets his legal hand gun and takes care of the cituation. He has protected his family and all is legal! Criminals get the same rush as you do when they fire those rifles, only they kill people!

The debate of gun control will go on for ever, nothing will change! I believe one of the NRA's sayings is 'WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, CRIMINALS WILL HAVE GUNS", That statement I have always agreed with, but with less assault weapons available to the US, well, you do the math.

But gun legislation will never take your guns away, not in this political country where money buys all the votes to keep congress from passing such a bill! Personally, I don't even own a gun of any sort. I feel no need to have one. I feel secure in our system of law enforcement, but that's me. I don't really care if the man next door has an arsonal, that's his right. But if he has a assault rifle that's against the law and therefore becomes my worry, when he's firing that weopon, in a way that allows criminals to know he has one or more of those guns!

The debate could, and will, go on forever! So we citizens will not be happy, no matter what congress does. It's our right to complain about what they do, and we do!

Again let me say that I don't care either way about gun control, I like to think we live in a civilized country that provides for our safety, as well as they can. I won't get on a stump and speak out either way. You lovers of those types of assault rifles, have at it! I do love to read your threads and articles though, both sides!

Semper Fi Marines!

mrbsox
04-19-07, 10:19 AM
OK I am gonna pizzzzzzzzzz some people off give me one good reason why any person needs a assault rifle other than Law enforcement or Military personnel. And dont give me no lame arse reason for hunting cause that aint flyin with me. I have killed alot of deer and other animals with a bolt action 308 or 06 my entire life..

... is what we learn as Scouts.
"Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it", is my adaptation.

My Mossberg 590 would fall into the ASSAULT WEAPON catagory.
It has a pistol grip, collapsible stock, and 'accessory' lug on the mag tube (yes, the OKC Marine bayonet fits it well), as well as red dot mounted.
It sets in the closet except when being cleaned. My war belt for it sets in a deployment bag in the closet, next to a can of 00 buck.

WHY was the question.

Because I don't trust society, or the government to protect me and my family. ie... New Orleans after Katrina.
Because I'm paranoid of not being able to survive should the sh!t hit the fan. ie... roving mobs of 'maurauders' or just plain thugs.
Because it WILL put food on the table if need be. ie... self explanitory.
Because I LIKE IT !!

Don't get me wrong, I don't WANT to need it, or my 2 SA .45acp'. But I WILL take care of my loved ones. It is my RIGHT as an American citizen, my duty as a husband and father, and my responsibility as a UNITED STATES MARINE !!:flag:

rktect3j
04-19-07, 10:33 AM
Lets not get too far ahead of ourselves here. I can agree that we should not just jump onto the ban bandwagon. But this country as a whole needs several things.
1. Laws that are not set by each state but for the entire country.
2. Strict enforcement of those laws.
3. Accountability upon infraction of those laws.

What happened in Virginia probably wouldn't have been stopped with stricter gun laws but that doesn't mean a green card holder should have had a gun legally. That was a serious problem in my mind.

The reason our lwas are as screwed up as they are is because gun manufacturers have a lot to lose with stricter gun laws and regulations. We as a people like guns and think of them as another sports activity. Gun makers are just selling these things as ifit is a basketball or hockey stick. Fuqem and there bottom line.

This is not a game and I know that most on this site are responsible when it comes to guns but the majority of gun owners out there are not educated as well as we are. I knwo several people/friends that I will not go to the range with again and these are college educated people and one is prior enlisted Army.

We need to scrap the current laws and set some real standards here. Lets not pretend we don't.

jetdawgg
04-19-07, 10:38 AM
I own guns and rifles. I have never used them to assault anyone or anyone's freedom. I will only use it in self defense or target practice.

If any crook, madman etc., wants to find out how great my aim is, I am inviting him to do so. I have names for my weapons.....

The Answer
The Closer
The Stopper
The Punisher and finally The Finisher:usmc:

drumcorpssnare
04-19-07, 10:54 AM
Hey jetdawgg- I like how you "name" your weapons! LOL When I fired cannister rounds out of my cannon...( 100 stainless steel .50 cal round balls )... I called it, "the Meatgrinder"!:D
drumcorpssnare:usmc:

killerinstinct
04-19-07, 11:21 AM
Killerinstinct is right, but it is the 2nd amendment
http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Flags/usa-flag-89.gif


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

<CENTER></CENTER>

HAHAHA opps whered that 3 come from sorry guys.... i guess my finger got the best of me on that one.

jetdawgg
04-19-07, 11:27 AM
Hey jetdawgg- I like how you "name" your weapons! LOL When I fired cannister rounds out of my cannon...( 100 stainless steel .50 cal round balls )... I called it, "the Meatgrinder"!:D
drumcorpssnare:usmc:

gotta treat them good drum:D . The "meatgrinder" makes me want to go out to the Bass Shop now to look for another

YLDNDN6
04-19-07, 11:27 AM
davblay...The issue here is not "Automatic" rifles, but "Semi-automatic" rifles. I fully concur that the average American citizen has absolutely NO reason to own a "Fully Automatic" rifle of any sort, and the laws of the land pretty much make it impossible to obtain one legally. I, personally, see good reasoning in that. I do not own any "Automatic" rifles. My argument is strictly in favor of responsible ownership of firearms within the confines of the law. As for "securing" my firearms, I will forever maintain that the security of my firearms goes dramatically above and beyond normal procedures that most people take. Even if someone breached my perimeter while my family and I are out enjoying our other liberties, there is no way they would leave my property with a fully functioning firearm of any sort. The only way you could harm anyone with any of my firearms, as they sit right now, would be to either hit them with it, or cause them to have a massive coronary at the sight of it. I have too much at stake to allow anything of that sort to happen with my property. But that's just me...my paranoia keeps me safe! Semper Fi, Brothers!!!

davblay
04-19-07, 11:50 AM
davblay...The issue here is not "Automatic" rifles, but "Semi-automatic" rifles. I fully concur that the average American citizen has absolutely NO reason to own a "Fully Automatic" rifle of any sort, and the laws of the land pretty much make it impossible to obtain one legally. I, personally, see good reasoning in that. I do not own any "Automatic" rifles. My argument is strictly in favor of responsible ownership of firearms within the confines of the law. As for "securing" my firearms, I will forever maintain that the security of my firearms goes dramatically above and beyond normal procedures that most people take. Even if someone breached my perimeter while my family and I are out enjoying our other liberties, there is no way they would leave my property with a fully functioning firearm of any sort. The only way you could harm anyone with any of my firearms, as they sit right now, would be to either hit them with it, or cause them to have a massive coronary at the sight of it. I have too much at stake to allow anything of that sort to happen with my property. But that's just me...my paranoia keeps me safe! Semper Fi, Brothers!!!

Unfortunatley, not all gun owners share your secruity! You are the minority, and that is sad! If all gun owners shared your security, then there would be no problem, but there is that word "IF"!

fontman
04-19-07, 12:09 PM
Would tighter restrictions on guns decrease the likelihood of these atrocities?
Bradford B. Wiles

On Aug. 21 at about 9:20 a.m., my graduate-level class was evacuated from the Squires Student Center. We were interrupted in class and not informed of anything other than the following words: "You need to get out of the building."

Upon exiting the classroom, we were met at the doors leading outside by two armor-clad policemen with fully automatic weapons, plus their side arms. Once outside, there were several more officers with either fully automatic rifles and pump shotguns, and policemen running down the street, pistols drawn.

It was at this time that I realized that I had no viable means of protecting myself.

Please realize that I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun in the commonwealth of Virginia, and do so on a regular basis. However, because I am a Virginia Tech student, I am prohibited from carrying at school because of Virginia Tech's student policy, which makes possession of a handgun an expellable offense, but not a prosecutable crime.

I had entrusted my safety, and the safety of others to the police. In light of this, there are a few things I wish to point out.

First, I never want to have my safety fully in the hands of anyone else, including the police.

Second, I considered bringing my gun with me to campus, but did not due to the obvious risk of losing my graduate career, which is ridiculous because had I been shot and killed, there would have been no graduate career for me anyway.

Third, and most important, I am trained and able to carry a concealed handgun almost anywhere in Virginia and other states that have reciprocity with Virginia, but cannot carry where I spend more time than anywhere else because, somehow, I become a threat to others when I cross from the town of Blacksburg onto Virginia Tech's campus.

Of all of the emotions and thoughts that were running through my head that morning, the most overwhelming one was of helplessness.

That feeling of helplessness has been difficult to reconcile because I knew I would have been safer with a proper means to defend myself.

I would also like to point out that when I mentioned to a professor that I would feel safer with my gun, this is what she said to me, "I would feel safer if you had your gun."

The policy that forbids students who are legally licensed to carry in Virginia needs to be changed.

I am qualified and capable of carrying a concealed handgun and urge you to work with me to allow my most basic right of self-defense, and eliminate my entrusting my safety and the safety of my classmates to the government.

This incident makes it clear that it is time that Virginia Tech and the commonwealth of Virginia let me take responsibility for my safety.

---Wiles, of New Castle, is a graduate student at Virginia Tech.

YLDNDN6
04-19-07, 12:19 PM
davblay...we are in absolute agreement on that, Brother!

fmoyer
04-19-07, 12:49 PM
Living in Haden Lake, Idaho I was unlucky enough to have the arian nation compund just next door to me , they had a range which they used almost every day firing a little bit of everything even a 50 machine gun. Keep in mind that almost all of these people were x-cons with long records. They gave everyone a bad time and tried to intimidate everyone. I flew a Marine Corps & American flag and set up my own range. I never had a problem with they and in fact they always waved when they went by, with thier whole hand not just one finger as they did others. They are gone now but I believe just letting them know I was armed and knew how to use force kept them off my property and away from my family. We earned the right to keep own guns I am not a gun nut but believe in the right of others to be if they want. nuff said by me.

jetdawgg
04-19-07, 01:04 PM
fmoyer, I am with you Marine. When folks see that Eagle, Globe and Anchor it is intimidating:usmc: . I don't care who they are or where they are from.

ggyoung
04-19-07, 01:57 PM
Much has been said in these posts some right and some wrong. The only kind of rifle that can not be maid in a full auto is a single shot. John M Browning made a full auto out if a Winchester 1894 by useing rods and small plates with a 31 cal. hole and used a baffle. It worked. This is from the last issue of American Rifleman page 28. " 75 years ago. The Pedersen Device. "These remarks refer to the "Automatic Pistol, Cal. 30, Modil of 1918." otherwise known as the "Pedersen Device," 65,000 of witchwere manufactured, though up to the very end of the war its very existence was known to onlyabout 2 dozen oggicers, one of whom is the present writer. Inspite of its name this device is not an automatic pistol at all, but is best decribed as an "automatic bolt" for the Springfield rifle, which can instantly be inserted in place of the reular bolt. It is fitted to a magazine holding 40 cartridges, which are of .30 caliber, so they fit the barrel of the rifle, but are the same size and power as the .32 automatic pistol cartridge".

Quinbo
04-19-07, 02:22 PM
Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms
everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
-- George Washington, Commanding General of the Continental Army, Father of Our Country and First President of the United States in a speech to Congress, January 7, 1790

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government." -- Thomas Jefferson, Author of The Declaration of Independence, and President of the United States

__________________________________________________ ______

10thzodiac
04-19-07, 02:31 PM
Shortly after I got into Division, one of my fellow radio operators filed the sear down on his .45. Unfortunately it went full automatic while qualifying next to the battalion commander, scuttlebutt had it that he almost dinged the CO http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/11.gif

They say he got transferred to Guam, I never saw him again :D

BTW, earlier while that Marine was chasing a prisoner from my battery during a court martial, he was jumped at the mess-hall, two other Marines (the prisoners buddy's) knocked him out took his .45 and sped through the rear gate of Pendleton. Never saw those three again also.

The prisoner and his buddies were always in trouble. I believe the court martial was for disobeying a lawful order, not to wear utilities with battery acid holes in them, (motor pool).

drumcorpssnare
04-19-07, 02:49 PM
jetdawgg- My fellow cannoneers and I used to put manequins 50yds. downrange, clothed in blue or gray. You would not believe what six full scale guns firing cannister will do to "four lonely soldiers.":D Because it's not "true" deadly combat, it is freakin' hillarious!!! WOW!!!
drumcorpssnare:usmc:

Zulu 36
04-19-07, 03:05 PM
So hypothetically, are you alluding if the order came down as so many here fear, the Marines would refuse to confiscate guns from Americans http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/images/icons/icon5.gif

Not what I said. What I did say is you shouldn't trust an old survey taken before 9/11 and basing your opinion of the results from an article instead of the actual masters thesis written by the Navy commander who did the survey.
Too much is left unsaid in the article, either by design or lack of information on the part of the author.

Zulu 36
04-19-07, 03:10 PM
Awright, I'm going with Zulu on atleast part of this. Because I CAN. Add into this, that Las Vegas has been found to be one of the most dangerous cities on the planet. I keep a CAR-15 locked and loaded. I work nights, and my daughter is home alone. ( Yeah she's been trained like we wuz).

Now I'll disagree with Zulu, as there ain't nothing better than a 30-06 Springfield er an 8mm Mauser for target practice.

Jim
:D

Never said I didn't know how to use 'em, just never had much use for 'em. (Stolen from Quigley Down Under). :bunny:

Actually I do enjoy shooting bolt actions and most anything else that projects something via burning gunpowder. Muskets aren't my fave; too slow, too dirty, but still fun.

silentsoul
04-19-07, 03:14 PM
:tank: WHY can't I buy a gun in Korea?
****ed again!
:usmc: S.S.

Zulu 36
04-19-07, 03:27 PM
Not what I said. What I did say is you shouldn't trust an old survey taken before 9/11 and basing your opinion of the results from an article instead of the actual masters thesis written by the Navy commander who did the survey.
Too much is left unsaid in the article, either by design or lack of information on the part of the author.

I did some research on Cunnigham's thesis. It is available, but it costs $39.95 for a PDF copy of the thing. Anyone interested can break out their credit card and go to:

http://www.stormingmedia.us/09/0973/A097392.html

Any further argument using this thesis should not be conducted until all of us have a full copy to read and analyze first. Since I'm not buying a copy, I guess the whole thing becomes moot as far as I'm concerned.

Sgt Leprechaun
04-19-07, 03:55 PM
I remember when this survey was done. I wasn't a participant, but as I recall, it basically said that the military members wouldn't take kindly to enforcing this type of thing. Besides, according to posse commitatus, the military CAN'T be a party to this type of thing, by law.

I know as a police officer, I think it would not only be a stupid idea, but bad law. Look at what's happened in Great Britain, for example, which has near universal gun control....check out the crime stats in London or other places. They aren't pretty. The thugs KNOW the populace is disarmed.

Zulu 36
04-19-07, 04:18 PM
Actually the posse comitatus act, as a law, only applies to the Army and Air Force.

Posse comitatus applies to the Navy and Marine Corps only as a matter of Dept of the Navy policy.

The reason for this act was to preclude US Marshals, on their own volition, from calling in US Army troops to assist them in enforcing federal law in the period following the Civil War.

It also does not prevent US troops, from any branch, from being used to help restore civil order. Certain procedures and permissions must be sought and obtained first.

In 1967, during the Detroit riots, several battalions of the 82d Airborne were ordered into the city at the request of the governor because the Detroit police and the Michigan Army National Guard were overwhelmed. Where the 82d was present, things went quiet. I personally witnessed this. The worst of the riot ended within two days after the 82d deployed.

drumcorpssnare
04-19-07, 04:26 PM
Let's not forget the US Marines being called out in the late '20s-early'30s (?) by the President to guard the US Mail.
drumcorpssnare:usmc:

hrscowboy
04-19-07, 09:25 PM
Gentlemen you all seem to forget that the Constitution was written almost 300 years ago when we where in fact at war with the British and we had no Army, Navy ,Marine Corp, or any branch of service to protect the people of the United States. Today we have all kinds of protection from our Military, and Law Enforcement to do what the people of the United States had to do back then. So therefore according to some people there should be a ban on certain types of handguns and assault rifles. How say you Jarheads..

10thzodiac
04-19-07, 10:34 PM
Lets not forget how the WW I Veterans were promised a GI Bill and when Congress didn't fund it.

Many World War I veterans marched on Washington. Our General Smedley Butler was there supporting them !

The break-up of the Bonus Army in Washington was conducted by Army Chief of Staff and World War I veteran Douglas MacArthur, assisted by Majors
George Patton and Dwight

[B]ROUTING A RAGTAG AMERICAN ARMY

By Linda Wheeler - Washington Post Staff Writer

The clatter of horses' hooves and the rumble of tanks cut through the hot
July day and reached Fred Blacher as he waited for a trolley along
Pennsylvania Avenue.

A parade, he thought.

But when he turned, the teenage Blacher saw hundreds of soldiers marching
from the White House -- and this was clearly no festive demonstration. They
were heading toward the crowds of jobless World War I veterans who had
encamped in Washington, living for months in parks and empty buildings,
some with small children. To them, Washington was as good a place as any to be homeless.

Daily, thousands of the veterans who came to be known as the Bonus Marchers pleaded with Congress for payment of the money owed them for war service. It was 1932, deep into the Great Depression, and those bonuses held many of the men's last hopes for finding money to pay rent or feed their families.

Steadily, the troops marched, joined by D.C. police. They shoved veterans
off the curbs and drove them from abandoned buildings. Behind the troops,
the cavalry rode, scattering Blacher and hundreds of other spectators.
Before that afternoon ended, Blacher, now 83 and living in Silver Spring,
would be enveloped in tear gas and struck by a blow from the flat side of a
cavalryman's sword. The encampments would be set ablaze, soldiers would be forced to bear arms against their own, and legions of families would be
rousted.

The capital has been the setting for thousands of demonstrations in the
last century, and Pennsylvania Avenue the scene of presidential inaugural
parades, victory marches and civil rights demonstrations. Yet few events
lasted as long as the Bonus Marchers' protest or ended so violently.

By the time the marchers descended on Washington, the fallout from the
stock market crash nearly three years earlier had left hundreds of
thousands of people jobless and destitute.

When the World War I soldiers came home victorious in 1918, there were
plenty of good jobs and a vigorous economy. In that climate, the veterans
supported a 1924 congressional bill that put off the promised bonus for
wartime service until 1945, when they would receive their due plus
interest. A soldier owed $400 would collect $1,000 by waiting until 1945.

However, the Depression replaced any sense of prosperity, and many veterans began pressing their congressional representatives to help them get their hands on the only asset they had left: the promised money. In early 1932, Rep. Wright Patman, of Texas, responded with a bill that would immediately pay the full value of the certificates.

In mid-May of 1932, 300 veterans set out from Oregon under the leadership
of 34-year-old Walter W. Waters, an unemployed cannery worker. They dubbed themselves the Bonus Expeditionary Force, and their goal was to get the Patman bill passed.

As they traveled the country by rail, they gathered volunteers and a lot of
media attention. Irving Bernstein wrote in "The Lean Years" that many
marchers said they came to Washington because there was no reason to stay home.

"A Pole from Chicago, at one time with the 39th Division . . . slept in
flophouses, usually with other veterans. One day they got to talking about
the bonus and, 'the next thing we knew we were on our way.' "

From young Fred Blacher, who would see the marchers as he passed through
downtown, they elicited sympathy. In his own worn knickers, high socks and
shoes, he was not much better off, but his father had managed to open a
shoe store after losing everything in the crash. Looking at the veterans,
he would say to himself, "poor guys."

By July, their leader, Waters, said 80,000 veterans had come to Washington.
Police said the number was closer to 22,000. Either way, they were a city
within a city.

Washington Star reporter Thomas R. Henry wrote that they were "a fair cross
section" of America, with "truck drivers and blacksmiths, steel workers and
coal miners, stenographers and common laborers. They are black and white.
Some talk fluently of their woes. Some can hardly muster enough English to
tell where they came from and why."

The "dusty, weary, melancholy" men were in a struggle "which is too severe
for them," Henry wrote. "They have come to the point where they recognize
the futility of fighting adverse fate any longer. . . . The bonus march may
as well be described as a flight from reality -- a flight from hunger, from
the cries of starving children, from the humiliation of accepting money
from worn, querulous women, from the harsh rebuffs of prospective
employers."

Now that they had landed in Washington, the city had to somehow take care
of them. The new chief of police, Pelham D. Glassford -- whose only
experience with police before getting his job was receiving a speeding
ticket -- was assigned the task. He was a World War I veteran and seemed to understand the men.

He arranged for the veterans to move into four empty buildings, on
Pennsylvania Avenue near Third Street, that were available until October,
when they were to be razed. Eventually, that land would become part of the
Federal Triangle.

But still they came, and four campsites sprang up, including the Mall,
where veterans built shelters of crates, tin cans, old newspapers and bits
of tar paper. American flags decorated the simple homes.

Glassford set up a commissary in a garage at 473 G St. NW and persuaded
bakers, coffee distributors, meat suppliers and others to donate goods. The
District's medical and dental societies set up a 50-bed hospital near the
Capitol.

The marchers organized their own military police force of 300 to keep
order. One of their assignments was to prevent about 200 determined
communists from moving in. The veterans were not anti-government; they saw themselves as good citizens who had come to Washington to get well-deserved help.

For weeks, about 12,000 kept a vigil at the Capitol. When Patman's bill
failed to pass the Senate on June 17, they sang "America the Beautiful" on
the Capitol steps and then formed ranks and marched back to their camps.

Rather than be discouraged by the bill's defeat, the Bonusers, as they were
called in the press, grew more determined to sway Congress.

Herbert Hoover, who had spent his administration ignoring the economic
crisis, wanted the publicity-drawing veterans out of town. He authorized
Congress to spend $100,000 to buy them train tickets home. The travel
expenses eventually would be deducted from their war bonus.

About 6,000 marchers took the money -- but then many stayed in Washington anyway.

District residents embraced them, delivering coffee and sandwiches and
inviting some of the marchers' families to share their homes. But the city
commissioners, worried about riots, wanted the marchers out and daily
pressed the police chief to get rid of them. The commissioners insisted
that Glassford evict them from the federal buildings by July 28 on the
pretense that demolition was about to begin.

Glassford drew on his personal relationship with the men to persuade those
in one building to leave by late morning, but he refused to push the other
veterans around the city any harder that day. The commissioners appealed to Hoover to bring in the military, saying that Glassford had lost control.

The president responded promptly.

"You will have United States troops proceed immediately to the scene of the
disorder," Secretary of War Patrick J. Hurley told Gen. Douglas MacArthur
in a memo dated 2:55 p.m. July 28, 1932. "Surround the affected area and
clear it without delay."

About two hours later, four troops of cavalry, four companies of infantry,
a mounted machine gun squadron and six whippet tanks lined up on
Pennsylvania Avenue near 12th Street. Some of America's greatest military
minds were on hand. MacArthur, the commander, was there with Maj. Dwight D. Eisenhower and one of his officers, George S. Patton Jr.

"I remember MacArthur with his hands on his hips," Blacher said.

Constance McLaughlin Green, in her book, "Washington, a History of the
Capital, 1800-1955," gave this account: "In the lead rode General Douglas
MacArthur, his medals shining on his immaculate uniform, his boot gleaming,
his horse perfectly groomed. It was a magnificent sight. The bedraggled men
sitting on the curb and the crowd gathered nearby watched with fascination."

As the horses pounded toward the awe-struck veterans, reporters at the
White House were being told the Secret Service had learned that those
resisting eviction were "entirely of the Communist element."

Tear gas bombs drove the demonstrators into a frantic retreat as spectators
ran for cover.

"The mob, the horses, the tear gas," Blacher said, flinging his arms to
embrace a huge expanse. "There were bricks being thrown. All those guys
running and screaming. It was awful."

Chased by the cavalry, he raced across the avenue and onto the Mall. The
horsemen swept behind them. Blacher went down.

"What the hell you doing?" he remembers yelling at the soldier on
horseback. "The guy just kind of shrugged." Blacher, who was not badly hurt
by the blow, stayed around to watch the rest of the operation.

The shelters built of scrap material caught fire quickly when ignited by
either departing veterans or impatient soldiers. To the heat and humidity
of the day were added the incessant crackle of a spreading fire, black
billowing smoke and the wail of sirens.

By midnight, the police and troops from Fort Myer had driven the
demonstrators from downtown and from campsites in Northeast and Southeast Washington.

From the White House that evening, Hoover saw a red glow in the east toward the Anacostia River that indicated the largest site, Camp Marks, had been torched. Aides reported the next day that the president was pleased.

The routed veterans departed, with most carrying their few belongings on
their backs and a few driving decrepit cars packed with weary men. Troops
blocked the bridges leading back into the city, and while many men weren't
certain where they would head, some went to Johnstown, Pa., where they had heard they would be welcome.

Blacher gave up on catching a trolley and walked to his father's store at
433 Seventh St. SW, where the Department of Housing and Urban Development building stands now. He excitedly told him the news.

"We didn't have TV in those days, you know, and nobody really knew what was going on."

The press ran a list of casualties the next day that included one marcher
who was shot to death by police and 26 veterans, 15 residents, 11 police
officers, five soldiers and one news photographer who had been hospitalized.

In 1935, Congress passed the bill providing for the immediate cash payment
of the war bonuses.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt vetoed it.

In 1936, FDR vetoed the same bill again. But that year, the House of
Representatives overrode him 326-61 on Jan. 24, and on Jan. 27, the Senate
voted to override.

The next day's Washington Post headline read: "Soldier Bonus Becomes Law as Senate Crushes Veto, 76-19; Full Payment Sped for June 15."

003XXMarineDAD
04-19-07, 11:42 PM
Gentlemen you all seem to forget that the Constitution was written almost 300 years ago when we where in fact at war with the British and we had no Army, Navy ,Marine Corp, or any branch of service to protect the people of the United States. Today we have all kinds of protection from our Military, and Law Enforcement to do what the people of the United States had to do back then. So therefore according to some people there should be a ban on certain types of handguns and assault rifles. How say you Jarheads..


<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
__________________













If any one thinks I would just give up my guns to a bunch of DC lawmakers that can not even grow a set of balls to win in Iraq. I could not give them a chance to protect my family or my house on their word which is written on tp paper.
:)

taman8tor
04-20-07, 01:29 AM
Reading through this topic/thread provokes a lot of thought. One person referenced Cain and Abel as an action of violence. Let's bring this forward. Had this delusional and suicidal person killed / massacred using a stone, would those in our society call for a ban on carrying stones? I hate to say it but probably so.

This is truly a tragic event and my sympathies goes to all the families. Really, a lot of young talent and some old, was lost through no control of their own.

What really gets under my skin is the media portraying the tool as the root of cause. Screw NBC and their hype / ink on their exclusive.

Think about; the person who saves their family or protects their home from an intruder, wild animal attacks a human and is defended against using a side arm or long arm, a dog with rabies roaming a community and is put down by a citizen using a firearm, law enforcement using lethal force to protect innocent citizens.

I guess these events of preservation/protection for the common good by our citizenry do not deserve the hype by national media. Maybe, I just do not watch enough television because I don't see it. It's just wrong in my opinion. S/F Out.

RLeon
04-20-07, 01:57 AM
Gentlemen you all seem to forget that the Constitution was written almost 300 years ago when we where in fact at war with the British and we had no Army, Navy ,Marine Corp, or any branch of service to protect the people of the United States. Today we have all kinds of protection from our Military, and Law Enforcement to do what the people of the United States had to do back then. So therefore according to some people there should be a ban on certain types of handguns and assault rifles. How say you Jarheads..
Cops are great but when you have an intruder in your house go ahead and see how long it takes for them to get there. Remember "Police" in the Corps means to clean up.
Also when the 2nd amendment was made the assumption was that in order to form a proper militia, (not National Guard, NG is Federal, run by the Government not a militia) the militia men were to be armed with weapons that were equivalent to the military powers of thier time. The 2nd amendment exist in part to protect the people from a government gone bad(it has nothig to do with hunting like so many gun grabbers like to say). Imagine the people defending themselves with bolt and single actions. That doesn't mean give everyone arty,c-4, and grenades, but they must be allowed to have atleast semi-auto weapons.
BTW I'm just as deadly with my Springfield '03 manufactured in 1918 as I am with my modern semi-auto rifles.
:D

1jarhead06
04-20-07, 03:01 AM
they can have my guns when they pry my cold dead fingers from around them!

jetdawgg
04-20-07, 12:09 PM
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u17/jetdawgg/prbsolution_dees.jpg

ggyoung
04-20-07, 12:28 PM
The way they are going to get all of our guns will never happen. The plan is to tax the living s##t out of all gun parts, powder,reloading stuff anything that is in the gun world. It has started now. So stock up on everything then when the feds come to get them you might hold them off for maybe one hour untill they bring in the tanks and blowe you away. just wait and see.

semperfi170
04-20-07, 12:49 PM
Like I said in an earlier post: the only people left that will have guns will be crazies, terrorists, and criminals.! Normally, I would say why do you need an automatic weapon? However, it seems it might take owning one to provide some modicum of equal firepower. Because unless you are well protected behind a barrier and returning effective fire, massive firepower can overcome the best shooters.

mrbsox
04-20-07, 12:52 PM
I don't think the 2nd ammendment will ever get changed to prevent a nation wide ban on firearms, but there is nothing that prevents the government from taxing the SH!T out of parts, ammo, supplies, magazines, etc.

By the way, my 590 (as posted earlier) IS NOT an assault weapon, except by definition.

It is an HDW...

HOMELAND
DEFENSE
WEAPON:thumbup:

10thzodiac
04-20-07, 01:00 PM
Not what I said. What I did say is you shouldn't trust an old survey taken before 9/11 and basing your opinion of the results from an article instead of the actual masters thesis written by the Navy commander who did the survey.
Too much is left unsaid in the article, either by design or lack of information on the part of the author.

Unless I'm badly mistaken, I think the crux of of our discussion evolves around "Would U.S. Marines, if so ordered fire on fellow Americans if necessary to confiscate their firearms" ?

Unfortunately I believe yes. I know the Ohio National Guard is not the US Marine Corps, but I will use them as my example. Didn't they fire without orders on Kent State students ? Just think if they had orders http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/34.gif

As far as reading the Commanders thesis as suggested, otherwise the subject is moot. Many, maybe even you have not read the entire Bible, is it then moot ?

SF

10th

semperfi170
04-20-07, 01:17 PM
10th:

Yeah the guardies did fire w/o orders. But what happens when you get a unit that has poor discipline and is poorly trained, led by incomptents and put them in that type of situation? I had friends that went to Kent State and some of the other institutions where guardies were used. The feeling was that if a Marine unit had been called in there would not have been the killings at Kent State and the riot would have broke up as a result. Apparently, even then the reputation of the Marines for fighting made even the hippies think twice.:evilgrin:

10thzodiac
04-20-07, 01:23 PM
10th:

Yeah the guardies did fire w/o orders. But what happens when you get a unit that has poor discipline and is poorly trained, led by incomptents and put them in that type of situation? I had friends that went to Kent State and some of the other institutions where guardies were used. The feeling was that if a Marine unit had been called in there would not have been the killings at Kent State and the riot would have broke up as a result. Apparently, even then the reputation of the Marines for fighting made even the hippies think twice.:evilgrin:

I agree about Marine discipline compared to weekend warriors. But if ordered is the question ?

SF

10th