Jump to content
The Klipsch Audio Community
juniper

dont want to be political

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Jeff Matthews said:

I don't really care to beat a dead horse, but regarding the gun issue, when pols like Beto promise they want to take away your guns, I feel it is best to take them at face value.  (I'm not suggesting he means all guns, but my understanding is he means enough guns to warrant concerns by certain owners.)

they should  limit ownership of semi-auto assault type rifles , there is simple no reason to have these in homes when these are mainly Military weapons -

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, RandyH000 said:

they should  limit ownership of semi-auto assault type rifles , there is simple no reason to have these in homes when these are mainly Military weapons -

"Semi-auto assault type rifles"

 

Most if not all what your describing is all the same calibers as standard guns, the big difference is some are made to look like a military gun. 

 

What ? Because they look like a military gun ? Most pistols, and rifles and quite a few shotguns are semi- auto already, so which ones are you talking about, the ones that look like a military gun ?

 

It don't make sense, full auto, it's already illegal. 

 

Don't do guns it seems, or you would  know this and not make a statement like i quoted, anyone who knows even a little about guns knows that makes no sense.

 

.

 

.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fully auto, you said semi-auto, you have to have a special license for that, in other words you have to go way out of your way to do it legally, mostly by a collector and the percentage of these who make the news for a bad reason is very very small.

Most of the people who have these also have many other guns, and have for a long time. I have a bunch of guns, my first was at 12 years old, many I have are semi-auto, it's not the average gun owner you have to worry about it's the people who get one or two and have mental problems or bad intent to begin with, I had to apply and pass a federal background check for some of mine, well since they made it the law many years ago anyway. 

 

 

Illegal well you can buy a cannon or a bomb or just rent a truck if you are set to cause trouble.  You would be shocked what $200 worth of simple ingredients can make, don't worry about someone shooting people, they can take out the whole building if they want, worry about that instead of a gun, it's quite a bit more destructive.  

 

Most gun owners don't bother with the paperwork for something like that and they rarely get used except around friends of to show off and make a video. BIG difference between the two, full auto or semi, unless your a gunsmith you can change them. But the big question is who would risk going to prison to have something like that illegally, well usually the person who does not respect the law and is up to no good, not your average gun enthusiast that's for sure. No gun I have is worth going to prison for, I'm an average enthusiast.

 

Don't go by the BS on the news or in talking points, they have a agenda and mostly have no idea what they are even talking about as far as what guns are what and what they do, it plain to see by their statements/arguments. It's funny sometimes because it makes no sense when I hear some of this.

 

If someone is up to no good, they will find an illegal gun, or just use a different method, they surely would not go through the trouble to follow the law. And if the limit is one, that is plenty enough if you have bad intentions.

 

It's the people who use them who should be held responsible if anything bad happens. It's not the gun but the operator, I could buy some chemicals and do away with more than I could with a truckload of bullets and guns, it's the individuals intent not his choice of how and why to do it as the problem. 51 years owning a gun/guns and have never even came close harming someone, or ever wanted to, I have no bad intent so the weapon used is irregardless. 

.

 

.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use that mail to help me catch Bugs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dtel said:

That's fully auto, you said semi-auto

mini 14 semi-auto right ---watch

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bump firing is not the same thing as full auto. Each round fired still requires a pull of the trigger. It does not allow the gun to fire multiple rounds with one trigger pull. Whether or not bump stocks should be legal is an entirely different discussion from banning all semi-auto weapons. My favorite plinking gun of all time is a semi-auto rimfire .22. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, RandyH000 said:

nope anybody can bump fire a semi-auto  ---

 

It's not the same, to be perfectly honest if I had bad intentions i would rather have a semi-auto and I wouldn't shoot from my hip, only if your trying to be cool or playing not if your serious about hitting a target other than a tree stump which are very elusive, must be related to John Wayne to shoot from the hip.  

 

Look at most crime scenes where there has been crazy people trying to shoot people, 30-50? shots fired and 3 people shot while in a crowd of people, no accuracy your just spraying bullets. If they really wanted to do damage AIM and fire one at a time, guaranteed to hit more targets every time. But it's a good thing people who do this kind of thing are not gun enthusiast, they would  know better than to just randomly shoot towards a general area, the others have a gun for the wrong reason and don't really know how to use it, good thing.

 

Plus it's also good there is apparently a shortage of places to shoot or ranges in most big city's.  Because they are all terrible shots, if takes dozens or more shots to hit a few targets you don't know how to use your gun, good thing they don't practice. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a gun fight, he'd be dead before he got his thumb set in his belt loop. What a waste of bullets.

SSH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  

1 hour ago, dtel said:

 

 Because they are all terrible shots, if takes dozens or more shots to hit a few targets you don't know how to use your gun, good thing they don't practice.

 

exactly , buying a gun for show does not mean you are a good shot --

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RandyH000 said:

they should  limit ownership of semi-auto assault type rifles , there is simple no reason to have these in homes when these are mainly Military weapons -

That is just a politically statement to misinform calling semi auto guns assault rifles for those not familiar with guns. If you believe that you have taken the bait. The ones that want to ban guns know it would be hard to do outright so they chip away with one law after another. At least Beto is honest. The 2nd amendment is there to protect the people from government. Our founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they put that as 2nd. I do not trust any government so I am in favor of our 2nd amendment. "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." Read it carefully and take it as face value not with those that try to read into every word and twist it to suit there narrative. It says militia, not sporting, and shall not be infringed yet it is infringed almost daily. I've never heard of a gun killing anyone, only people doing so. In the deep south criminals do not target redneck houses because they know there is probably a gun in there to shoot back. Now more than ever we need our 2nd amendment. Just take a look at the news and see what is going on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, henry4841 said:

The 2nd amendment is there to protect the people from government. Our founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they put that as 2nd.

No it isn't.  That is a pervasive myth which is also bait.  Do some serious research on what they were thinking. Yes, they knew exactly what they were doing.   We did not have much of a standing army at the time, and an armed citizenry would help fend off foreign powers against the fledgling nation (well regulated militia).  At the time it would also help fend off any hostiles including natives.  It was never meant in the context of using arms against their own government.  George Washington led an army to quell the Whiskey Rebellion, read up on that.  Follow your own advice:

2 hours ago, henry4841 said:

Read it carefully and take it as face value not with those that try to read into every word and twist it to suit there narrative.

Nothing in the amendment mentions "to protect themselves against the US government."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

Nothing in the amendment mentions "to protect themselves against the US government."

That subject is covered in the Declaration of Independence, though.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

That subject is covered in the Declaration of Independence, though.  

No,  That subject was directed at England.  There was never an intent to set up a tyrannical government anew.  No one here get me wrong, I am not anti-gun, quite the contrary.  Jeff knows that if he remembers past discussions from the old hangout.  I am anti-moron though, and anti-ignorance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have the right to your opinion oldtimer and I think it is good to have discussions on the subject but I strongly disagree.  It is impossible to get everyone to think the same. The founding fathers had just overthrew a hostile Government to form this country and knew how governments treat the people and how they get corrupt. The amendment does not have to say the Government. With your thinking we should never had a revolution but just bow down to the British government. They needed weapons to overthrow the government in power and the British did everything in their power to keep citizens from having weapons as all governments eventual do. Ban guns and the people have to bow down to everything they say or else they will force you to. Our government has gotten bigger and bigger with corrupt politicians lining their own pockets. They go in broke spending tons of money getting the job and come out rich. Armed civilians is the check on government. Without armed civilians they can call up the military or like Germany the gestapo to quell anyone that disagrees. With armed civilians there are many in the army they would not obey orders to quell a revolution. The 2nd amendment is to protect citizens from government. Shall not be infringed is what it says but many are trying to infringe on that right at every turn. 

 

This has nothing to do with politics but everything to do with our constitution and what it says whether you are Democrat, Republican or independent. Lets just follow the constitution.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, oldtimer said:

No,  That subject was directed at England.  There was never an intent to set up a tyrannical government anew.

And at that time, wasn't it true that England governed America?  Wasn't it also true that our founders knew that absolute power corrupts?  Of course, they did not intend to set up a tyranny.  They just implemented systems to protect us from it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, henry4841 said:

With your thinking we should never had a revolution but just bow down to the British government.

Insulting and not even close to the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

And at that time, wasn't it true that England governed America?  Wasn't it also true that our founders knew that absolute power corrupts?  Of course, they did not intend to set up a tyranny.  They just implemented systems to protect us from it.

Of course, Jeff.  Like I said though, research their actual thinking on the constitution, they left a great paper trail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And included the 2nd amendment and never changed it. They included checks and balances as best they knew how when forming this government. The 2nd amendment is a check on government. Take away that right and we are in a lot of trouble. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...