The goal isn't to take away all guns.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
The goal isn't to take away all guns.
123
Mon, 01-07-2013 - 11:48am

Despite the scare tactics so typical of the right - see health care - there is no desire to take away all guns amongst most on the left. That is how the right wants to define the debate, as all or nothing. It knows it wins in that case.

All we want is common sense, but listen to, see the howls and declarations of 'you won't take away my gun!'

Which position is actually rational and reasoned?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Sat, 02-23-2013 - 8:56pm

No, not all guns are made the same. Hunting guns and hand guns at least serve a purpose (hunting and protection) but specific assault weapons made for the purpose of killing many in a short period of time which also poses a danger to those who are hired to protect us should be banned.

All guns serve a purpose, that's why they're made and sold.  But it's the height of arrogance when people, so obviously ignorant about firearms and their use, try to dictate their ignorance and tell law abiding citizens how many rounds we need to protect ourselves, our families and our property?

As has been mentioned many times, a mother in Georgia locked herself in an upstairs room when an intruder broke into their home.  The intruder didn't just steal the stereo and leave...he went after the woman and her kids.  She had a handgun with six shots...at point blank range, she missed once and hit him FIVE TIMES...and he was still able to leave the house and drive his car away.  What if she had missed a few more times?  Would that guy have been able to overpower the woman and harm her and the children?  Sorry, dear, but you only get six shots...more than that will upset the liberals so you and your children will just have to conveniently die to make them happy.

What if there were more than one intruder?  How about three?  Five?  What if there are riots like in LA or Greece, or after Katrina when gangs went about looting and killing?  What if you're a storeowner and a gang breaks into your store?  Sorry, a bunch of ignorant liberals don't think you should be able to defend your property and your life so you and your employees have to die.

Joe Biden thinks you should buy a shotgun, then go out on your balcony and fire off the two shots in your shotgun to scare the would-be assailants away.  But Joe Biden is a moron.  First of all, not everyone lives a stone's throw away from a police precinct, or lives in an area where police always rush in to save the day in three seconds flat...the woman in Georgia is evidence of that.  And instead of being frightened away, some criminals might just realize that you wasted your ammo firing off your balcony and now you're completely disarmed and at their mercy.  Like I said, Joe Biden is a moron.

Generally speaking, we don't care if liberals are ignorant and want to protect themsleves with cotton-candy and wishful thinking.  Why don't they just move to rural farming communities where there are no guns and no cars and everything runs on hopes and dreams instead of nasty oil.  A "progressive" nirvana where success is demonized and mediocrity is lauded...where everyone has free everything and illegal aliens are welcomed with open arms to do all the jobs that those hypocritical liberals won't condescend to do.

Would that it were true, but that's probably wishful thinking...so for now, let's just give 'em a big smack and tell them to keep their ignorant, hypocritical hands off our Constitutional rights. ; )

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sat, 02-23-2013 - 9:51pm
Sweeping generalizations and ad hominems galore, I'll come back when the adults are on the board.
Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Sun, 02-24-2013 - 2:00am

  I will answer your question;  Much depends on where you live work and have land.  You see distance from the attacker/criminal makes a very big difference.  A pistol of say 10mm -.40 is sufficient for small area defense if the person has extra magazines.  Now if you add a bit of distance or the wildlife like coyotes.or wolves, etc. then a smart person would not let them close.   If you live on a large lot then a rifle is by far the better weapon.  I myself prefer rifles to pistols.   Modern rifles firing .223 or 5.56 have limited effective range(300-600yards).  Much better than pistols. The light caliber is very sensitive to wind. 

  However, they do make excellent hunting/ varmint rifles for short to medium distances and have deer kills being very accurate which is because of the superior handling of modern rifles.  In personal defense the advantage is keeping the criminals /attackers running away.  

  Another misconception as the "assault rifle" is a killer.  The military designed as a wounder.  The math is it takes 8 people to tend to 1 wounded.  The theory is that attrition of effective combatants will cause the enemy to run out of resources. Robert MacNamera"He concluded that there were a limited number of Viet Cong fighters in Vietnam and that a war of attrition would destroy them. He applied metrics (body counts) to determine how close to success his plan was."

  Now to answer killing as many in a short amount of time there are only two American guns that qualify.  The Thompson .45 and the MAC 10.  The Thompson is very heavy!  I have handled the Thompson.  The mac 10 is not reliable due to a fault in the firing pin.   A very high rate of fire is not good as unless handled by an expert it is ineffective.  

    I have lived in several environments.   I hunted small game a .223/5.56 is perfect with a modern rifle with it's increased accuracy means meat on the table. 

   As I have outlined these guns have many uses.  Being superior to other firearms in design and accuracy as well as ease of use. They do serve the public very well indeed.

   

  These guns are not the military versions not even close. 

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sun, 02-24-2013 - 9:11am
Get back to me when hunters advocate for rifles to have 30 round capacity.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Sun, 02-24-2013 - 5:23pm

Sadly, facts and reasoned arguments don't make a dent with the haters.  Their twisted ideology simply comes down to "I don't like it...so you shouldn't have it."  Guns are just the latest in their litany, whether it's SUVs or light bulbs or coal and oil powered anything...the list just goes on and on.

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Mon, 02-25-2013 - 1:12am

  Ok I'll answer that.   I do wish this would tell to whom I am responding!  Your question about hunting has to do with the state laws on hunting.  For hunting there are limits to the number of cartridges so we do not drive the game extinct.    Many of the very old rifles held quite a few heavy bullets.  The passenger pigeon for instance or the buffalo nearly was.  Michigan for example limits 6 shots for hunting deer.

    But 30 rounds is perfect for home/land defense and varmints.   Criminals can count.  professional criminals are not stupid.  That is why one chooses different weapons for different environments.   More bullets means a better chance of survival.  Why 30 rounds?  That is the world wide standard load out.   And they are needed.  

      Now if your experience is movies and TV then it is not representative of real life.    A full auto has 4 sec of firing time on full auto.  So if your concern is:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/sanantonio.asp

dragowoman

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Mon, 02-25-2013 - 1:13am

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/sanantonio.asp

Interesting no?

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Tue, 02-26-2013 - 2:55am

It was reported in the news today that the average number of rounds the police fire to bring down an assailant is FIVE SHOTS.  You do the math...if liberals get their way, they're condemning people defending themselves from assault to death.  Do they care?  No...until it happens to them...then the hypocrisy flies...suddenly what they decree YOU don't need, they decide THEY need, whether it's a high-capacity magazine, or an SUV or AlGore's private jet and HUGE mansion.

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Tue, 02-26-2013 - 1:05pm

  It is not liberal vs conservative.  It is those who can afford bodyguards with auto weapons  verses to common people.  it is becoming a new feudal age.  Many moderates and liberals see the danger.  There is another player.  The UN.  Yes the UN is trying to become a world government.  Their goal is no guns in the hands of ordinary people.  The terrorists love this because they people that they mutilate and kill have only the (usually) corrupt "police" and "national military".  Mercenaries are the real force but the African nations hate them as they win over the people and drive the terrorists out.   Making the government look weak. 

   Clinton favors the UN but the 2nd amendment is in the way.  The NDAA side stepped the first amendment. 

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/18/why-the-ndaa-is-unconstitutional/

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Wed, 02-27-2013 - 9:03pm

It is not liberal vs conservative.

I tend to disagree.  While there are some liberals who support the Second Amendment, from what I've seen, the VAST majority of liberals want it severely restricted or overturned entirely.

It is those who can afford bodyguards with auto weapons  verses to common people.

If you've read some of the nonsensical arguments from folks here, you can see the divide isn't among the wealthy and the common people.  The haters seem to have some irrational fear of guns that can't be penetrated with reasoned arguments and facts.  The elites do, however, enjoy a perculiar kind of hypocrisy.  They want to disarm you, but they travel with multiple armed guards.  It would be especially amusing if the restrictions they're trying to put on the "little people" also limited the type of gun and number of bullets their own bodyguards could carry.

it is becoming a new feudal age.  Many moderates and liberals see the danger.

Are you referring to the elites oppressing the common folk?  I agree...but it seems that has always been the case.

There is another player.  The UN.  Yes the UN is trying to become a world government.  Their goal is no guns in the hands of ordinary people.  The terrorists love this because they people that they mutilate and kill have only the (usually) corrupt "police" and "national military".  Mercenaries are the real force but the African nations hate them as they win over the people and drive the terrorists out.   Making the government look weak.

I think the UN is corrupt and should be dissolved entirely, but that's probably wishful thinking.  Unfortunately, when liberals acquire power in this country, it empowers the UN and other corrupt regimes to push their anti-American agenda...to Democrat applause.

Pages