I would like a dicussion on guns in America.
Oh don't get me wrong I' m a strong beleiver in the right to bear arms.
My problem is, and this may sound a bit old fashioned with the younger generation.
Agian it may sound old, but when I was a lad kids came at yuou with fists, chains pipes, and an occasional switchblade.
Then they got the saturday night specials, then nine millimeters, mac tens,and high powered sniper rifles.I mean whats next laws ,stinger missles?
Do we really need a machine gun to hunt with?

A person who doesn't qestion anything already knows everthing I would like to meet such a person.

Personally, I am comfortable with our current gun control laws. But I live in a safe state that doesn't really experience the same level of crime and violence seen in other areas of the country.

As a sportsman who hunts, I don't believe you need an AK47 to shoot a deer or any animal for that matter. Bloodshot meat is a waste of a good hunt.IMO.

__________________
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine

Military might doesn't make up for political stupidity.

Agreed on the meat, I prefer a .22 or 22.250 for that, but I have a childish fascination with automatic weapons and being that there's a finite number of full-auto weapons for civilian ownership in the US, they've been by far the best investments I've ever made. As for the semi-auto AK47 types, I have a couple of Saigas in .223 and .308 that make the perfect truck guns. Kalashnikov actions, 16" barrels, virtually indestructible, can't clog them with mud, nothing rusts, no wood and cheap. I carry one on the quad and one in the truck.

ps: for the anti-gunners; we've spotted two different cougars within 500-yards of the house because my wife likes to let the deer eat our very expensive turf so she can watch them out the windows. Call me paranoid, I call it insurance.

__________________
These are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. ~Groucho Marx~

I feel the issue is the "slippery slope" scenario. The idea is that if you ban certain guns you open the door to ban them ALL. In New Jersey, a few years ago, there was a state senator who sponsored a bill banning automatic weapons. When that passed he was quoted as saying "now we will go after the rifles and shotguns."

That's as close as I can remember and the quote is accurate in meaning bot probably not an exact quote.

Also, a decade or so ago, the Chief of Police in Washington, D.C. held a public meeting to show the evils of "assault" weapons and how common they were among criminals. The problem was they had no such weapons in the confiscated weapons locker so he sent an assistant to Virginia to buy one.
The other problem is they aren't cheap and they're hard to conceal, and as such not a big fave of the criminal element.

One last point was that, if memory serves, one of the first things Adolph Hitler did was confiscate all the privately owned guns. It's obvious why HE did that, so why isn't it obvious to the sheep over here?

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

The only gun control I think there should be is against criminals, young kids (I.E. Anybody 15 and younger that does not have adult supervision) and the mentally unstable. If we ever have an issue with our government trying to restrict of our rights and then become more unreasonable, how are we to protect our way of life from the government who's suppose to help us maintain a "free" life style? I don't see people trying to ban cars that can travel over 80 MPH, no need for them (legaly) so why do we have them? Same reason we have parachutes for extreme sports and large cars to overcompsate for you're lack of (I laugh at the people who spend too much money on cars rather than the more useful things in life, like video games and food and .... )

My mistake, I'm still learning how this site works hope to do better soon.

First of all I think you misunderstand me sir, I think law abiding citizens should have the right to purchace a weapon, it is the fact that criminals and lawbreakers and teenagers can purchace one so easily that I have a problem with.
And though it is true Hitler did confiscate all weapons also one of the first things he did was do away with labor unions, and spy on people without cause,and lockup anybody who questioned him, they were labled as unfaithful to Germany sound familiar?

I don't think I misunderstood you, I just read "Do we really need a machine gun to hunt with?" and ran with that.
I believe most criminals AREN'T criminals when they purchase their guns legally. They just use them later, and you can't preemptively withhold the right to buy a gun on the strength someone MIGHT use it criminally.
I think a lot of the rest of the guns are stolen or bought on the black market, which is impossible to monitor or regulate.

So, in the end the right to bear arms is all or nothing.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

It makes no difference if they're stolen or purchaced on the black market, a gun in the wrong hands is as dangerous as power in the wrong hands.

_____________________________________________
A person who doesn't question anything knows everything I would like to meet such a person.

I want to propose that weapons control start at the top.

That is, before we take guns out of the hands of the people, let's take the really dangerous stuff away from the truly big-time sociopaths, our various heads of State. Start at the top and work down.

I really can't see an argument for gun control that shouldn't apply to Bush, the Pentagon, and so forth, but much more urgently.