Gun rights - for or against?

What this person says is right. Do you find it offensive?

Yeah. I wouldn't assume.

One of the weird aspects of carrying is figuring out just how much you can conceal under different types of clothing. It's more than most people think. Definitely more than I thought.

That and most men who carry in church tend not to broadcast it.

Really, you wouldn't know unless you asked or accidentally bumped into the wrong part of their hip. Even then.

HOWEVER, there is absolutely no reason for assault weapons to be owned by private citizens. No one needs an AK-47 to shoot an intruder or kill a deer. I think that it should be illegal for people to own assault weapons. Why does anyone NEED a machine gun?

If assault weapons were banned under a new law, then the people who already own them could be grandfathered in, that way the government would not be coming into people's homes, taking away their guns.

I think there could be a compromise, to get the exceptionally dangerous guns out of the public. A terrorist could kill less people with a rifle or shotgun than with an assault weapon.

Correct me if I'm wrong, based on your post I'm assuming that you would want these weapons banned

View attachment 171293

but this one would be ok

View attachment 171294

Yes, I see no purpose for the guns in the top pictures, other than killing as many people as possible in as little time as possible with very little skill. I don't hunt, but I know hunters and they don't use automatic weapons. I just see no purpose for citizens to own automatic and semiautomatic weapons.

I am not saying outlaw regular rifles, shotguns, and pistols.

He just caught you in a trick question. LOL

Is the second one an automatic or semiautomatic weapon? If it is, I would like it banned, too. I don't pretend to be a gun enthusiast. I know very little about them, except that they frighten me.

I am not against ALL guns, only weapons that should not be available to anyone who is not a police officer or a member of the military. I realize it is an unpopular stance.

Actually, it is an un-Constitutional stance. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to ensure that any citizen that COULD be needed in a militia action would have, in his possession, a weapon that was suitable for war.

Do a little research and see who the founders, and writers of the Constitution, considered those citizens to be.

A semi automatic rifle is the same as a regular bolt action except it kicks the spent shell out and chambers a new one. Just like you would do with a bolt action...It just does it for you. It's not an assault rifle. It's a hunting rifle. The ones he showed you are replicas. Not the real thing, and probably are the semi autos shown below. The shape of the firearm is not longer an issue based because of replicas.
Me? I'm 100% in favor of gun ownership. I do understand that many people are afraid of guns though. They need to understand that a gun is an inanimate object. They will do nothing without a person to make them do it. It's the people who are dangerous. Not inanimate objects.

Yes, I see no purpose for the guns in the top pictures, other than killing as many people as possible in as little time as possible with very little skill. I don't hunt, but I know hunters and they don't use automatic weapons. I just see no purpose for citizens to own automatic and semiautomatic weapons.

I am not saying outlaw regular rifles, shotguns, and pistols.

Is the second one an automatic or semiautomatic weapon? If it is, I would like it banned, too. I don't pretend to be a gun enthusiast. I know very little about them, except that they frighten me.

Actually, it is an un-Constitutional stance. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to ensure that any citizen that COULD be needed in a militia action would have, in his possession, a weapon that was suitable for war.

Do a little research and see who the founders, and writers of the Constitution, considered those citizens to be.

You answered as I expected. All three weapons pictured are identical (same make, model and caliber) other than cosmetics. Most persons who are not familiar with forearms would condemn the first two as "assault weapons" and want them banned but give the third a pass because it looks benign.

When you look at statistics pertaining to firearm related crime, the percentage of persons criminally killed with "assault weapons" annually in the US is a fraction of a percent of all criminal killings yet those are the weapons everyone wants banned because they look dangerous.

How many bullets does a semiautomatic fire in a minute? Also, do they take much skill? As far as what I've read, they take little skill to use.

Sure, but people are (1) insane (2) not careful. It's no good saying there are laws to keep insane people from buying guns. There are, and that is great. However, there are scores of insane people who have never been diagnosed and can legally buy guns and go on a rampage. I looked it up, the guy in Orlando killed 49 with a semiautomatic rifle and a semiautomatic pistol. I just think a quick loading, high capacity weapon is meant for one thing- killing people.

No offense, but I think a really proficient hunter would take pride in using a traditional rife. Otherwise, it seems like shooting fish in a barrel. My opinion, of course.

Forgive me, I did not know the capacity of the third gun. It is not the "look" of the weapon. It is the lack of skill needed, the amount of bullets that can be fired in a short amount of time, and the high capacity of the magazines that bother me. Dylan Roof killed 9 with a .45 caliber pistol. Omar Mateen killed 49 with a semiautomatic rifle and a semi-automatic pistol.

The South Carolina shooting would have caused more carnage if he had semiautomatic or automatic weapons.

Well it takes no more skill to use a bolt action rifle. The only skill involved with any rifle, as far as I can see, is aiming. The semi auto has only the convenience of not having to eject and chamber a new round manually. So its convenience. How many rounds per minute...Well most are capable of holding only four rounds So there you are. Still you have to remember. It takes only one round to do the job, if you have the skill. Still, my friend, Its the people that are the danger.

But the mass shooters, they can just shoot away and not have to take as long to reload. A person with a gun is a lot scarier than a person without a gun. I saw a guy in a bookstore with a gun on his hip. I was as nervous as a cat, and got out of there as quickly as possible. I didn't think he was an insane gunman, but I didn't know how competent he was. He could have dropped it and it could have gone off, for all I knew. I felt threatened, to tell the truth. I also felt a little angry that I had to leave the bookstore early because I was frightened.

Dear girl...Its not the gun you see that you need to be nervous of. It's the madman in a large truck. Or a car on a bridge Or a bomb on a plane. Or some wacko in McDonald's, with HIV, spitting in your Big Mac. Its always the people. Always And too, You did not have to leave early. You allowed yourself to be controlled by a spirit of fear.

Yes, I see no purpose for the guns in the top pictures, other than killing as many people as possible in as little time as possible with very little skill. I don't hunt, but I know hunters and they don't use automatic weapons. I just see no purpose for citizens to own automatic and semiautomatic weapons.

I am not saying outlaw regular rifles, shotguns, and pistols.

The one on the bottom is the same weapon as the one on the top.....I have one and love it...Mini-14 decked out with 30 round magazines......

I am all for weapons and my right to carry.......one day soon...people who are opposed to weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens will be begging for protection.....