Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by greenfox83
Well for one, no more fresh duck or deer meat at my house. This will take away my husbands freedom to go in the woods and hunt for food for his family. It's not all about "thug life" and crazy people. What about the people who are hit with hard times and survive off hunting for their family. Ever see that show about people in Alaska who literally survive off this and growing their own food.

Who hunts with automatic weapons!? How is that hunting? Might as well throw a grenade in the middle of the herd or put landmines along a game trail.

edit on 16-1-2013 by superman2012 because: spelling

Good point! In my country of origin, many hunters use twin barrel combinarion guns. 1 is for a 12 gauge shell and the orhte ris a 303 or simlar cal rifle. Some even use Tripples with an additional 22 cal for small game. Bolt action 5 rounds max hunting rifles and twin barrel shot guns are the most common weapons. The combo-twins and Tripples are msotly used for game warden duty to eliminate any sick and desease carrying game. But REAL hunters will even laugh at the guy with the 5 rounds bolt action rifle. They pride themselves to be so good that the 2nd barrel on a rifle is for "just in case". And the just in case scenario is mostly limited to the wild boars, because these guys can get nasty if just a bit "wounded".

Originally posted by POPtheKlEEN89
Well Obama has fully revealed his position, now if congress acts in favor of his laws i would like to know what liberties you will be losing and why you feel that way.

I am generally interested in hearing your personal views on how these laws will affect your individual liberty, so far i haven't been able to stomach this debate no matter where i see or hear it, so indulge me with an intelligent response giving me your reasons for or against the looming assault weapons ban.

Keep it civil, if you foam at the mouth please clean up after yourself.

Ok, I'll answer you question directly from just my perspective.

As individual rights (mine) are extinguised, government 'right's are extended to make up the difference.

It's simply a transfer of power from the sovereign individual, to those 0.00001% that pull the strings.

Who really is better at protecting me and my familiy, myself or the government and what is the cost in both liberty and privacy to me (not to mention direct costs)

It appears to me as the citizens of country after country are disarmed, (by these VERY conveniently timed shooting events) the governments in those countries only grow ever more powerful, more domineering, more abusive, more invasive.

I see this slippery slope as ending up *eventually* (if it's allowed to continue) with a camera on every street corner and a microchip in every wrist,literally, even now those things (and MANY more) are being pushed as a way to keep American's 'safe', as Obama and Biden and all of their CFR friends, seek to make every American 100% helpless and dependent on The State for their very survival.

This to me seems the real tradeoff.

Our Founding Father's and Mother's warned us so very clearly about never allowing this to happen.

I think they were very intelligent and perhaps more so intuitive, we should really listen and pay heed.

Originally posted by OpsSpecialist
I am a former corrections officer who spent most of my time dealing with prominent gangs. It's a job that comes with understood risk, but what most people don't realize is that risk follows you home. If any of the threats I received from gang members ever come to fruition, I will be outgunned. Perhaps most of you can't understand what it's like to live knowing there are people who want you dead at any cost. ...threats that made enough noise to warrant attention from the U.S. Marshall's service. Welcome to my life. A life where carrying a gun is not an option. I refuse to let anyone give any criminal an advantage over me. The Constitution grants me the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I can't think of anything that infringes on my rights more than putting my life even more at risk.

Wow, i cant imagine that kind of stress, but i can fully understand why your weapon gives you not only the physical protection but the comfort of knowing you can fight back in the most Dire of situations, at least thats how it would be for me if i were in that situation! Thank you very much for the input!!

Originally posted by Tecumte

Originally posted by POPtheKlEEN89
Well Obama has fully revealed his position, now if congress acts in favor of his laws i would like to know what liberties you will be losing and why you feel that way.

I am generally interested in hearing your personal views on how these laws will affect your individual liberty, so far i haven't been able to stomach this debate no matter where i see or hear it, so indulge me with an intelligent response giving me your reasons for or against the looming assault weapons ban.

Keep it civil, if you foam at the mouth please clean up after yourself.

Ok, I'll answer you question directly from just my perspective.

As individual rights (mine) are extinguised, government 'right's are extended to make up the difference.

It's simply a transfer of power from the sovereign individual, to those 0.00001% that pull the strings.

Who really is better at protecting me and my familiy, myself or the government and what is the cost in both liberty and privacy to me (not to mention direct costs)

It appears to me as the citizens of country after country are disarmed, (by these VERY conveniently timed shooting events) the governments in those countries only grow ever more powerful, more domineering, more abusive, more invasive.

I see this slippery slope as ending up *eventually* (if it's allowed to continue) with a camera on every street corner and a microchip in every wrist,literally, even now those things (and MANY more) are being pushed as a way to keep American's 'safe', as Obama and Biden and all of their CFR friends, seek to make every American 100% helpless and dependent on The State for their very survival.

This to me seems the real tradeoff.

Our Founding Father's and Mother's warned us so very clearly about never allowing this to happen.

I think they were very intelligent and perhaps more so intuitive, we should really listen and pay heed.

edit on 16-1-2013 by Tecumte because: txt ad.

Excellent point!!! The vacuum of power is never empty!

Thanks for the input, i can agree that you are the best protection for your loved ones, not the government.

On the surface is the right to own said weapon but underneath it all is the right to a lifestyle choice, the right to liberty and happiness. IF it is politically correct for a homosexual to fantasize and fondle another man then why cant an individual fantasize about feeling secure by fondling his assault rifle? Gun ownership is a lifestyle choice that should be protected under the Constitution along with other "lifestyle" choices. In fact gun ownership has a specific "double barrel" protection with the Second Amendment that extends the general rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (this is not entirely tongue in cheek)

The ability to make it a lot harder and messier if the armies come to our properties to round up our families. And that is the purpose for haivng them. And the government is so intrinsically evil and those they serve that in Canada, where we cannot have such weapons, one spends a lot of time wondering what they will do in various situations.

Don't give up your guns!

reply to post by POPtheKlEEN89

So I appreciate your reply above, but if you don't mind I'd enjoy your thoughts on the slippery slope, how this has played out worldwide, and if you don't see it being played out here in the U.S.

Do you really think that limiting/banning so called 'assault weapons' would be the end? I think like we've seen in other countries and even here in the states in places like Illinois etc. that really it's just the start. Do you think ALL guns should be banned from the citizens? Where would you draw the line, and once an inch is given how would the citizenry know it would be the last line?

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
On the surface is the right to own said weapon but underneath it all is the right to a lifestyle choice, the right to liberty and happiness. IF it is politically correct for a homosexual to fantasize and fondle another man then why cant an individual fantasize about feeling secure by fondling his assault rifle? Gun ownership is a lifestyle choice that should be protected under the Constitution along with other "lifestyle" choices. In fact gun ownership has a specific "double barrel" protection with the Second Amendment that extends the general rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (this is not entirely tongue in cheek)

Excellent point! But where i counter that is Gay men fondling each other has little chance of affecting anybody else in a violent manner (for all i know), gun ownership is a lifestyle choice that can POSSIBLY affect many. But to counter myself i am a gun owner as well (.38 special) and i couldn't fathom misusing it in anyway at all.

But there are a ton of great points being made in this thread helping me see things a little differently, so thank you for contributing!

Originally posted by zayonara
"The right to bear arms" does not read "The right to bear arms that your government says you can bear." Simple as that. No more, no less, no foaming.

edit on 16-1-2013 by zayonara because: (no reason given)

They didn't even HAVE assault weapons when the 'government' wrote the Constitution.
So if Tesla technology ever comes to the market-place you mean you should have a choice of that too?

Greediness and simple-mindedness make for scary Americans.

You.Don't.Need.Assault.Weapons. ....and you can't always get what you want. So get over it.