Zero2Cool
12 years ago
Admittedly, I’m not that well versed with guns, but I do know that assault rifles serve one primary purpose, … to kill… many, quickly and I don’t feel there is any place for them in our civilian hands. I’ve read quite a few comments on news sites, forums and Facebook and it’s astonishing how foolish many of the pro-gun people are. I’m all for the 2nd amendment and from (my interpretation) of it. Meaning, you hold arms for protection. A shotgun, handgun… not an assault rifle that fires off 30 shots a second or whatever insane spray they have.

A few of the asinine comments I’ve seen that have rubbed me wrong …


“Why doesn’t a resident killing a would be robber in a gun battle make national news?”


People posing these kind of questions who bear arms, … scare me! Does a robber killing a resident make national news? Not without a racial undertone it doesn’t. Another failure to understand big picture.



“Obama’s family gets protected 24/7 by men with guns and feels you don’t need guns to protect your family.“


This was stated in the context that Obama is saying his family is more important. Wrong. The family of the President of the United States is recognized world-wide and as the most powerful man in the world means consequently his family is at risk. It’s no way shape or form saying one family is more important than the other.



“We don’t blame cars for drunk drivers. Why blame guns for violent people?”


This is another one that irritates me because of how ignorant it is. Getting into a vehicle intoxicated is adding RISK to killing someone. Entering a school, church, movie theater, mall or anywhere heavily populated with people with assault rifles and grenades is doing so with the INTENT to kill MANY. How is this difficult to understand?



“56 children 14 and under died from fatal gun accidents compared to 86 died in bathtubs”


All I have to say about this, and anyone with an IQ > 35 will understand is this … how many children play with guns everyday compared to how many children take a bath every day? Context, it’s a statistics end game.



“Let us ban knives because 22 children were stabbed in China”


I find this interesting because those stating it always fail to acknowledge that all 22 children survived. Visit your child in the hospital or attend their funeral? Think about it.




I have little to no issue with home protection gun ownership, recreational hunting… I just don’t feel there’s a realistic need for you, me, or our neighbors to possess assault rifles.
UserPostedImage
Pack93z
12 years ago


I have little to no issue with home protection gun ownership, recreational hunting… I just don’t feel there’s a realistic need for you, me, or our neighbors to possess assault rifles.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



This I agree with.. the classification of an assault rifle/weapon needs clear definition however.

Additionally, I think there should be tiers of weapons and training/licensing needed to possess the different classes/tiers of weapons.

The right to own a gun is protected by the amendments of this country, but that doesn't mean it should be completely unregulated.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
4PackGirl
12 years ago
i seriously couldn't agree more, kevin.

i wish more people could feel empathy for others more often.

if having a gun in your nightstand somehow gives you a higher sense of security, i guess that works for some.
but i know that unless my family was in harms way, i could NEVER EVER shoot another human being & if you have a gun in your home for protection, you have to be fully prepared to use that gun.

violence has become far too big of a presence in our lives. i'm one of few parents who will NOT allow their kids to play call of duty. most of the boys friends have been playing them since they were 8!!! that to me is lazy parenting & just plain ignorant.

Porforis
12 years ago

Admittedly, I’m not that well versed with guns, but I do know that assault rifles serve one primary purpose, … to kill… many, quickly and I don’t feel there is any place for them in our civilian hands. I’ve read quite a few comments on news sites, forums and Facebook and it’s astonishing how foolish many of the pro-gun people are. I’m all for the 2nd amendment and from (my interpretation) of it. Meaning, you hold arms for protection. A shotgun, handgun… not an assault rifle that fires off 30 shots a second or whatever insane spray they have.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



Even if we take your example as an exaggeration to make a point (very few weapons, and as far as I'm aware, no legal weapons fire half that quickly), I firmly believe that at least 75% of Americans (including many gun owners) believe that banning the sale of weapons like that is acceptable.

Like many other political issues these days (spending, taxation), I think the problem arises when nobody is willing to firmly define terms and explain what is and is not acceptable. People will point fingers at problems and bad things and propose solutions, but they don't define what IS acceptable and what IS a reasonable balance of liberties and safety. Obviously, there's people on extremes of the political spectrums that won't be happy no matter what, but for most people closer to the middle, I do believe there's room for agreement and compromise with enough rational and effective communication.

This is the legislation many politicians want to re-enact.

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


In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.



While there are certainly many things in here I think most of us can agree should be banned, why is there other crap in there? Why are we banning firearms by name rather than using simple, measurable terms to determine what should and should not be legal? Why can't we say that any semi-automatic weapon capable of firing over x rounds per minute is illegal, any magazine size over x is illegal? Why is everybody saying X, Y, and Z need to be banned without firmly defining where the trail of banning should end?

Personally, I don't see the need to own a firearm. Hell, the day I moved into my new home, I heard a series of pops from a parking lot two blocks north of me and there were cop cars out there for about 6 hours afterwards. Nobody got killed but it was apparent there were shots fired. But still, I don't think I'm responsible enough to own a firearm with my history of depression and much earlier in life, suicide attempts. That being said, I understand why many people want to own firearms to protect their families in the case of home invasions and the like.

And I know that if I did have a handgun, I would want a semi-auto handgun. If I honestly need to shoot someone, I'd absolutely love to be able to simply incapacitate someone as the thought of killing ANYBODY sickens me, but if someone is in my house and is threatening myself and my wife I am not going to take the chance. If I lived out in the country, I could see myself having a rifle of some sort and if it was in an area known for druggies raiding houses, maybe something semi-auto. I could never see myself with a semi-auto shotgun though.
Cheesey
12 years ago
People are murdered EVERY DAY in America with things other then guns. Should we outlaw anything that has been used to murder someone?

You see, it ALL boils down to the fact that you have to make the punishment of using a gun or anything to kill someone as your "target". Going after guns will not lower violent crime.
The agenda of those in power is to highlight ANY crime committed with a gun, as a "reason" to take away guns.
And what exactly is an "assualt weapon?" I have heard the term, but it seems most people have no idea what that means.
If you mean "automatic weapons", then i can see why they are not neccesary to be owned by the general public.
If you mean semi automatic, then i disagree.
An AR-15 is no more dangerous then a 30-06 rifle, but it LOOKS "meaner".
It's the BAD PEOPLE that we have to target if what your real desire is to stop mass murders like we have seen.
A person beaten to death with a baseball bat is just as dead as someone shot to death.

And as i have said over and over, and it's still true, is if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.
They are, and always will be out there. Just because you don't SEE them doesn't mean they arn't there.
As i have stated before, countries that have outlawed guns have had increased gun violence. Why? Because criminals LOVE helpless victims.
I'm not saying everyone should own a gun. If you don't want one, don't get one.
I would shoot an intruder if it meant protecting my loved ones. Does that make me evil? I would HATE to have to do it, but do you think a criminal would have any problem with attacking me, or raping my wife while i'm forced to watch?
Check out the number of people that have saved thier own lives and the lives of their loved ones, alot of times without even having to fire a shot, just because they had a gun and showed it to the intruder.
It happens all the time in this country, but as it flies against the scare tactics the liberal media wants, it's usually not reported on.
UserPostedImage
Formo
12 years ago
The problem lies in the government's/media's definition of 'assault weapons'. And the continued ignorance of what a semi-automatic and a full automatic weapon is.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
+1
Zero2Cool
12 years ago

The problem lies in the government's/media's definition of 'assault weapons'. And the continued ignorance of what a semi-automatic and a full automatic weapon is.

Originally Posted by: Formo 



Legit inquiry ... can you explain the difference?
UserPostedImage
Formo
12 years ago

Legit inquiry ... can you explain the difference?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



Between semi-autos and full-autos?

Semi-autos, regardless if the trigger is pulled or held, one round is fired. Full-autos, if you hold the trigger, it will continue firing rounds.

As far as the definition of an 'assault weapon', basically, the government/media considers any weapon that LOOKS scary/militaristic as an 'assault weapon'.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Zero2Cool
12 years ago

Between semi-autos and full-autos?

Semi-autos, regardless if the trigger is pulled or held, one round is fired. Full-autos, if you hold the trigger, it will continue firing rounds.

As far as the definition of an 'assault weapon', basically, the government/media considers any weapon that LOOKS scary/militaristic as an 'assault weapon'.

Originally Posted by: Formo 



When I say I don't feel we civilians need to possess any assault rifles, I was speaking more about the weapons that you pull the trigger and 30 shots ring out in seconds.

I'd say semi-auto is fine, but full-auto, I disagree with that we NEED to have them. I feel the former is more adherent to the 2nd amendment than the latter.
UserPostedImage
Pack93z
12 years ago
There will be the argument, that with some work, tools and knowledge.. one can take a semi auto and convert it to fire more than one round per pull.

Here is my problem with both the semi and fully automatic weapons (and yes I have fired one a couple different times) is neither is very accurate and to be honest.. past the first couple rounds.. you are not taking the time to aim and fire between the adrenaline and recoil. So in my opinion, they don't make very good sport guns because of this.

I agree we in the public sector do not need a fully automatic weapon at all.. and probably not a semi either. But I guess I would make the regulations on them much stiffer to obtain the ability to own them at the very least.

And no.. just like the drug trade, you are not going to stop the criminals from obtaining what they want as the US regulations are always going to differ from the worlds. But lessening the opportunity for the types of "killer" that commit these spree killings.. such regulations as a tier program will limit the probably some.

We live not in bubbles and we are a "free" society... you are not going to stop it all.. even in a full out removal of guns. Personally, if those in power would just define in black and white what is allowable and not by the law abiding public within reason, it is about as good as the issue is going to get without changing the "free" society concept more than we already have.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    dfosterf (25-Jul) : It's my one day deal complaint dept. on shareholder meeting day
    dfosterf (25-Jul) : Probably a homer access credential intimidation kinda thing
    dfosterf (25-Jul) : Meathead "journalists" skip this, concentrating on operational revenue when convenient. They switch when net revenue is more favorable.
    dfosterf (25-Jul) : Resulting in an actual drop of net revenue of 12.5%. She is from Minnesota. Just sayin'
    dfosterf (25-Jul) : Any plans to hold Maureen Smith (CFO) accountable for a 95% drop in investment revenue?
    Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : In your face, HBO!
    Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @ByRyanWood Mark Murphy: “A great source of pride of mine is that we were never on Hard Knocks.”
    Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : *years
    Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @mattschneidman Mark Murphy says he anticipates “many Packers games” being played in Germany, Ireland and/or the U.K. over the next 5-10 yea
    dfosterf (25-Jul) : *cafeteria* I have hit my head also, so I sympathize
    dfosterf (25-Jul) : Possibly hit his head leaning into the glass protecting the food in the cafateria
    dfosterf (25-Jul) : Maybe a low flying drone
    dfosterf (25-Jul) : Did Savion Williams run into a goalpost or something?
    Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : also, no bueno when a guy starts getting concussions right off the bat in his career
    Zero2Cool (25-Jul) : Concussion is worse. Banks probably vet off day via back booboo claim
    Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @AndyHermanNFL Jordy Nelson out at camp today. No word if he’s in play for one of the two open roster spots ; )
    dfosterf (25-Jul) : Is that better or worse than Banks bad back?
    Zero2Cool (25-Jul) : Savion concussion ... not good.
    packerfanoutwest (24-Jul) : Aaron Rodgers’s first pass of first team period was picked off
    Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : tbh I didn't hear of his passing
    Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Cosby Show. Malcom Jamal Warner I think is real name
    Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : I was thinking of Ozzy and Hulk
    Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : Who's Theo?
    Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : How is Theo alliteration?
    Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : Bad week for people whose names are alliterations
    Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Hulk Hogan gone too.
    Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Oh, it's toe injury
    Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Hope it's not serious. that would stink
    dfosterf (24-Jul) : Sounds like an ankle not a knee for Fields
    dfosterf (24-Jul) : Ya Flaccp on Browns
    Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Maybe Tyrod Taylor instead
    Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : He's on Browns, right?
    dfosterf (24-Jul) : They would probably go with Flacco is my guess if Fields out
    dfosterf (24-Jul) : Fleece 'em again!
    Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Malik Willis might be someone Jets come after
    packerfanoutwest (24-Jul) : Packers introduce 1923-inspired classic uniform, leather-look helmet
    Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Both LB Quay Walker and Rookie DB Micah Robinson have passed their physicals
    Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Happy to see site feels more snappy snappy
    Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : No sir. I did not.
    dfosterf (23-Jul) : You didn't get free childcare when you were at work?
    wpr (23-Jul) : These guys make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Pay for their own childcare.
    dfosterf (23-Jul) : 2nd issue. Number 1 issue was no gameday childcare. 1 of 3 teams not providing it
    Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Suppose if locker room is main issue, we sitting pretty
    wpr (23-Jul) : I thought so Mucky. In those useless player polls GB always rates high overall. Locker is a part of it.
    Mucky Tundra (23-Jul) : Wasn't the locker room just updated like 6 or 7 years ago?
    Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : I have forum updated on different site. We'll see how this one goes before going to that
    Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Elgton Jenkins has a back injury, is expect to end contract dispute
    wpr (23-Jul) : It's funny the PA complained about the locker room. It wasn't that long ago it was top shelf. Things change in a hurry.
    wpr (23-Jul) : The site is much more better.
    Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : NFLPA report said Packers lockerroom needed upgrade. Whining bout where you change?
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2025 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
    COMMANDERS
    Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
    Browns
    Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
    Cowboys
    Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
    BENGALS
    Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
    Cardinals
    Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
    PANTHERS
    Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
    EAGLES
    Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
    Bears
    Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
    RAVENS
    Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
    Vikings
    Recent Topics
    25-Jul / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

    25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

    25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    25-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

    24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    24-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

    24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    22-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.