Yes, they really do want your guns.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Gandalf77
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Just to play devil's advocate here, does that enumerated right include fully-automatic weapons?
Have our rights been infringed upon because the average citizen can't purchase an M-60?

It should and yes, they have been infringed. Look, the internet and all the various evolutions of communication over the centuries are considered "free speech" platforms by the SCOTUS and freedom of religion covers religions that didn't even exist when the Constitution was penned, so absolutely the 2nd Amendment has already been infringed on. By far more than just the Uncosntitutional bans of full auto firearms.

What about grenade launchers and mini-guns?

a reply to: Shamrock6

So how would "they" get em? How long do you think it would take every cop, every alphabet agent and every active duty or reserve military person in the entire country to knock on 100 million doors and demand to search the house for guns?

50 years? 500 years?

Vox can kvetch all they want, but in the real world it takes boots on the ground to clear even a small neighborhood of firearms. Fallujah, anyone?

Sorry, but nothing short of stargates or divine intervention makes a gun confiscation program possible, no matter which band of idiots is selling their agenda.

Reminds me of a quote from Mass Effect (PC game)

"Official - You can go in , but you have to leave your weapons here ."
"Commander Shepard - I will leave one bullet. Now , where do you want it ?"

a reply to: burdman30ott6

As long as nutjobs have access to high capacity firearms, those firearms must be made unavailable. It's common sense. Common sense trumps emotions.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: Gandalf77

What's "military-style"?

Big and scary-lookin'?

Just say you want to ban all semi-automatic firearms.

F# be honest so we can have a real dialogue.

I am being honest. "Military-style" is merely the terminology they use when they craft those types of bills. Remember the Brady bill? Heaven knows I do. They used that term to delineate all manner of accessories that could fall into the banned-for-sale category--flash suppressors, high-cap mags, folding stocks, etc.

Also, I'm not saying I want to ban all SA firearms at all. I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but perhaps it bears mentioning again: I own firearms, and I'm a shooter. I ENJOY shooting all kinds--SA, wheel guns, scatter guns, etc.

They're not coming for your guns. And they're not going to.
But don't be surprised if another Brady-type bill comes around. They may ban the sale of SA weapons again, but they won't come for the ones already in circulation.

It'll be funny to listen to all the wing nuts cry, though.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: burdman30ott6

As long as nutjobs have access to high capacity firearms, those firearms must be made unavailable. It's common sense. Common sense trumps emotions.

The law trumps emotions and the law is founded on and tested against the Constitutional Rights of the nation. That Constitution says you're the one relying on emotional drivel here.

a reply to: Gothmog

My name is Commander Shepherd and this is my favorite post on the Citadel.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Exactly. Well said.

a reply to: Gandalf77

We're not playing this ridiculous game here. Yes, I do believe civilians should have the ability to purchase grenade launchers and miniguns. Obviously the price point will cost most right out of the market, but yeah, I see no reason to ban those across the board.

Let's cut to the chase... intercontinental ballistic missiles aren't personal arms.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

So how would "they" get em?

It’s not my plan or idea, why are you asking me to explain it? The article mentions confiscation more than once. Why are you asking me to explain what they mean by it?

The whole point of the thread was to address the refrain of “nobody is coming for your guns.” Just because nobody has started kicking in doors yet doesn’t mean that isn’t exactly what they want.

a reply to: Gandalf77

It'll be funny to listen to all the wing nuts cry, though.

Laugh away, friend. But, citizens have to stay diligent and LOUD and stand firm anytime there is so much as a whiff of this bs.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: burdman30ott6

As long as nutjobs have access to high capacity firearms, those firearms must be made unavailable. It's common sense. Common sense trumps emotions.

Nutjobs don’t have access to anything I own, high capacity or otherwise. Your fear, which is an emotion, of inanimate objects I may or may not possess doesn’t trump anything.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Gandalf77

We're not playing this ridiculous game here. Yes, I do believe civilians should have the ability to purchase grenade launchers and miniguns. Obviously the price point will cost most right out of the market, but yeah, I see no reason to ban those across the board.

Let's cut to the chase... intercontinental ballistic missiles aren't personal arms.

Ah, interesting. I was wondering where you might draw the line.
So assuming one has the means to purchase such weapons, anything shy of an ICBM is fair game for personal ownership as intended by the 2A in order that we may have redress against tyranny?
You don't see any other challenges with that? Not even from a practical standpoint?

a reply to: Shamrock6

It's not possible. Think it through. Who is trying to manipulate you by making you think it is?

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: burdman30ott6

As long as nutjobs have access to high capacity firearms, those firearms must be made unavailable. It's common sense. Common sense trumps emotions.

Nutjobs don’t have access to anything I own, high capacity or otherwise. Your fear, which is an emotion, of inanimate objects I may or may not possess doesn’t trump anything.

The issue is the weakest minded have a difficult time separating someone who is "mentally unstable" from someone who "disagrees with them" these days. That's why we have such wonderful daily events as "GASP! You don't agree with me that XYZ is racist, so you're obviously a racist!" and "You can't see that so-and-so has brainwashed these people because you're brainwashed, too." It's like kindergartners never grew up, never realized there are facets to the world around them, which offer different views from their own. To some degree, I'm in that same boat, except I'm not looking to bend a whole segment of society over a barrel and violate their eyesockets by stripping them of their Constitutional rights because my legs get all shakey and I can't fall asleep without my wooby in a world with scary high capacity magazines and 99+% of firearm owners not commiting any crimes with their 2nd Amendment exercises.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: burdman30ott6

As long as nutjobs have access to high capacity firearms, those firearms must be made unavailable. It's common sense. Common sense trumps emotions.

The law trumps emotions and the law is founded on and tested against the Constitutional Rights of the nation. That Constitution says you're the one relying on emotional drivel here.

Hardly. As long as humans have the capacity to murder, keep weapons that can kill A LOT OF PEOPLE out of the public environment. That's rational and saves human lives. Shoulder missile launchers, hand grenades, and explosives are restricted for that very reason.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: burdman30ott6

As long as nutjobs have access to high capacity firearms, those firearms must be made unavailable. It's common sense. Common sense trumps emotions.

Nutjobs don’t have access to anything I own, high capacity or otherwise. Your fear, which is an emotion, of inanimate objects I may or may not possess doesn’t trump anything.

Hopefully a cure will be found for found for mental illness that causes violence, or weapons of mass murder will be banned from society.

a reply to: Gandalf77

No, can't say that I do. As it stands right now, there are civilians owning those weapons anyway... funny thing that, none have ever been used to commit a crime. FFL Class 3 license holders are among the nation's most law abiding citizens. They own full auto rifles, miniguns, grenade launchers, etc. Those who own them have paid a LOT of money to own them and, as such, they tend to follow the laws... same as anyone else who purchased them would. Same as 99+% of firearm owners in the USA do. We are literally discussing slapping restrictions on the entire body of owners over the actions of less than 1% of them... in a country which can't even get consensus on cracking down on or profiling fundamentalist Islamics who have magnitudes higher rates of violence and crime. So yeah, let the safest people in this country exercise their Rights, we have much bigger issues to deal with.

a reply to: carewemust

mmmmm nope.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Homefree

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Shamrock6

*calmly walks into the thread*


"Come and get 'em."


*calmly walks out of the thread*

Calmly prepared to improvise weapons and stuff their guns up there bums.
Have you ever seen a man eat his own head?
I have!

Nah. No drama. I'm a frail old man. A strong gust of wind would knock me over.

I'll hand over every registered firearm that I have, just to be a good citizen.

Are you going to let your family be killed by the authorita if they do try? just a serious question, I'm in no way saying I support the notion.

I just hear a lot of bravado about it. Kinda like the "good guy with a gun" is going to be there to save the day..apparently not in Texas.

I work in a rural area, inhabited by bears..pretty f'ing ballsy ones, so at times, I'm with the tools needed.