Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

America's Gun Culture...


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, hamradio said:

Just saw this on  AHC 

AA12 Machine shotgun.

AA12-Shotgun-600x400.jpg

aa-12-combat-shotgun-frag-12-automatic.j

 

Not only does it fires fast but unlike a regular shotgun, has little recoil.

 

Simple question Ham:  Should private citizens be allowed to own such a weapon?   If yes,   walk around in the public with them?

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Simple question Ham:  Should private citizens be allowed to own such a weapon?   If yes,   walk around in the public with them?

 

Thought the same question with the machine grenade launcher.

maxresdefault.jpg

;)

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

Thought the same question with the machine grenade launcher.

maxresdefault.jpg

;)

You did?    But you still don't know how you would answer? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2020 at 9:07 AM, jamesjazzguitar said:

Simple question Ham:  Should private citizens be allowed to own such a weapon?   If yes,   walk around in the public with them?

 

Absolutely

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BgayE said:

Absolutely

 

Well at least you're willing to put in out there.      I disagree but support gun-control at the state level and not the Federal one.

But hey,  I'm big on state-rights.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Well at least you're willing to put in out there.      I disagree but support gun-control at the state level and not the Federal one.

But hey,  I'm big on state-rights.

Perhaps your support would be better served as an NRA member?

You may just find supporting OUR constitutional rights to be more patriotic? 

A more honorable duty for a mere citizen?

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ech.  We don't live in the 18th century without standing militias or police forces or faced with imperial domination.  We also don't need to protect ourselves from them native "savages," highwaymen, pirates, or foreign armies.  We no longer need to hunt for food.  Guns serve to kill.  Kill.  Kill. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Allhallowsday said:

Ech.  We don't live in the 18th century without standing militias or police forces or faced with imperial domination.  We also don't need to protect ourselves from them native "savages," highwaymen, pirates, or foreign armies.  We no longer need to hunt for food.  Guns serve to kill.  Kill.  Kill. 

 

Seems you haven't seen the news recently.

3 men get prison time for violent armed home invasion

https://apnews.com/b711414a75b483cea02d2ea2982b7015

 

South Carolina Boy, 13, Fatally Shoots Burglar, Scares Off Second Suspect: Police

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/south-carolina-boy-13-fatally-shoots-burglar-wounds-second-suspect-n462006

 

They are savages! :angry:

Photo from 

https://www.newsbreak.com/news/0NkwK982/2-facing-charges-in-raynham-home-invasion-pistol-whipping

image.php?type=thumbnail_1024x000&url=4K

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, hamradio said:

Seems you haven't seen the news recently.

3 men get prison time for violent armed home invasion

https://apnews.com/b711414a75b483cea02d2ea2982b7015

 

South Carolina Boy, 13, Fatally Shoots Burglar, Scares Off Second Suspect: Police

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/south-carolina-boy-13-fatally-shoots-burglar-wounds-second-suspect-n462006

 

They are savages! :angry:

Photo from 

https://www.newsbreak.com/news/0NkwK982/2-facing-charges-in-raynham-home-invasion-pistol-whipping

 

These are actually old news stories that were cherry picked.  There is a "recent" event in S.C. where the father killed law enforcement officers for attempting to deliver a warrant to arrest his son for child sexual abuse.

And there is a difference between protecting yourself in your home or on your property from an actual threat.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BgayE said:

Perhaps your support would be better served as an NRA member?

You may just find supporting OUR constitutional rights to be more patriotic? 

A more honorable duty for a mere citizen?

 

Clearly you don't understand the US Constitution;    All Americans by default have to 'support' what is contained in that document.   Of course laws can be passed but if they violate the Constitution they will be overturned.    E.g. check out all the rulings in the last few weeks!    

To imply you're more honorable because you're a gun nut is very un-American.   

 What is American,  is that our government system allows for different POVs and states can have different laws,  as long as they are constitutional.

Hyper partisan fools always site the Constitution but ONLY when the Supreme Court rules in their favor.     You sound like one of those folks.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, TheCid said:

These are actually old news stories that were cherry picked.  There is a "recent" event in S.C. where the father killed law enforcement officers for attempting to deliver a warrant to arrest his son for child sexual abuse.

And there is a difference between protecting yourself in your home or on your property from an actual threat.

What in the heck does that crime have to do with self protection???

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

What in the heck does that crime have to do with self protection???

Nothing, but it shows the problem with too many guns in the wrong hands.  It is a counter argument to the one you are cherry picking to justify no realistic controls on guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Well at least you're willing to put in out there.      I disagree but support gun-control at the state level and not the Federal one.

But hey,  I'm big on state-rights.

States rights is part of the problem in US today.  Under states rights, voting in Republican states is drastically suppressed, as areabortion, Medicaid eligibility and many other "rights."

1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Clearly you don't understand the US Constitution;    All American by default have to 'support' what is contained in that document.   Of course laws can be passed but if they violate the Constitution they will be overturned.    E.g. check out all the rulings in the last few weeks!    

To imply your more honorable because your a gun nut is very un-American.   

 What is American,  is that our government system allows for different POVs and states can have different laws,  as long as they are constitutional.

Hype partisan fools always site the Constitution but ONLY when the Supreme Court rules in their favor.     You sound like one of those folks.

You were replying to BgayE.

The Constitution does not and never has protected the unrestricted ownership of guns.   The pro-gun group has never (and will never) accept that.  Congress and the states can pass all the laws they want until the US Supreme Court decides differently.    But, that is a debate that could go on forever.

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

States rights is part of the problem in US today.  Under states rights, voting in Republican states is drastically suppressed, as areabortion, Medicaid eligibility and many other "rights."

The Constitution does not and never has protected the unrestricted ownership of guns.   The pro-gun group has never (and will never) accept that.  Congress and the states can pass all the laws they want until the US Supreme Court decides differently.    But, that is a debate that could go on forever.

States rights are defined in the Constitution thus to me it is illogical to say they are  "part of the problem in US today" since they have always been there.  

I.e.  states rights have always allowed states to have different polices as long as they are constitutional.      Thus state rights are NOT the problem but instead the political leadership in individual states for those that oppose the political direction of that leadership;   E.g. conservatives disliking the fact that pot is legal in some states,  or liberals about abortion restrictions.       I would NOT want to live under a form of government in a country as large as the USA if only one layer of government (e.g. the Feds) made all laws.

As for your gun comment;   The Constitution was unclear about the issue of unrestricted ownership of guns.    This is why there has been a constant debate on the interpretation between "A well regulated Militia"  and  "shall not be infringed"  and why the Supreme Court has had to rule on this topic so often in our history.

I.e. if it was as clear as you imply,,,,   why the need for all those Supreme Court rulings?  

 

 

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

States rights are defined in the Constitution thus to me it is illogical to say they are  "part of the problem in US today" since they have always been there.  

I.e.  states rights have always allowed states to have different polices as long as they are constitutional.      Thus state rights are NOT the problem but instead the political leadership in individual states for those that oppose the political direction of that leadership;   E.g. conservatives disliking the fact that pot is legal in some states,  or liberals about abortion restrictions.       I would want to live under a form of government in a country as large as the USA if only one layer of government (e.g. the Feds) made all laws.

As for your gun comment;   The Constitution was unclear about the issue of unrestricted ownership of guns.    This is why there has been a constant debate on the interpretation between "A well regulated Militia"  and  "shall not be infringed"  and why the Supreme Court has had to rule on this topic so often in our history.

I.e. if it was as clear as you imply,,,,   why the need for all those Supreme Court rulings?  

 

 

Trying to not get into one of those back and forths, but.......

While the Tenth Amendment does reserve certain rights to the states, that is the most unclear part of the Constitution forever.  

To be clearer perhaps, "states rights" is the problem because of how the states have and continue to abuse that right.    

As for guns, I was pretty clear.  The Constitution never has protected the unrestricted rights of gun ownership.  That is why the Supreme Court gets involved whenever Congress or a state passes a law and someone brings suit.  Same as with any other law Congress or the states pass.  Anyone can bring suit to have it overturned and it frequently ends up in Supreme Court.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2020 at 11:19 AM, hamradio said:

Finally a solution to my possum  problem.

 

We had possums all the time in our yard. But once they got out in the street the cars took care of them.

We see more dead possums in the street, than squirrels.

 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Trying to not get into one of those back and forths, but.......

While the Tenth Amendment does reserve certain rights to the states, that is the most unclear part of the Constitution forever.  

To be clearer perhaps, "states rights" is the problem because of how the states have and continue to abuse that right.    

As for guns, I was pretty clear.  The Constitution never has protected the unrestricted rights of gun ownership.  That is why the Supreme Court gets involved whenever Congress or a state passes a law and someone brings suit.  Same as with any other law Congress or the states pass.  Anyone can bring suit to have it overturned and it frequently ends up in Supreme Court.

We have a common understanding on both topics;   I put in bold your "clearer perhaps" since I find that to me much clearer.    But I hope we could agree what one finds as "abuse" is highly partisan.     

(as for gun rights,,,  yea,   I see that I misinterpreted your comment and was being overly nit picky).

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, hamradio said:

Seems you haven't seen the news recently.

I am well aware of the horrors people visit on each other.  My point was contextual to the inclusion of the gun rights laid out in the 2nd amendment which made sense in the 18th century. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Princess of Tap said:

We had possums all the time in our yard. But once they got out in the street the cars took care of them.

We see more dead possums in the street, than squirrels.

Possums are misunderstood, beneficial and harmless animals. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NipkowDisc said:

Hot Dam! and a babe gives the order to fire.

:)

 

see, not enough firepower.

we need a full dilithium capacity recharge.

"enough to blast half a continent!" -peter duryea

:)

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...