After Shooting, MA Gov Seeks Limits On Machine-Gun Ownership

Originally posted by ventian
I have looked and haven't seen what model gun this was. Seems like sensationalism to get more gun rights restricted.

People should have the rights to own a fully automatic gun. If you are scared of one then don't have one, but there are responsible gun owners out there. If you don't want automatic weapons then surely you must be against all guns in general.

I don't want an automatic weapon. I don't want the cost to keep it fed. I you want one, great. Have fun.

By the way, I am as far from "against all guns in general" as one can possibly get.

Originally posted by akalepos

where does THAT end, what if i want to own my very own nuke? My very own landmine to plant in my very own lawn, ooops sorry Mr mail man, you just got blown up with my landmine, but it's my right to have stuff i want.What if i want to a cats cadaver i just dug out of a garden? I don't need to justify that to ANYONE it's my right, right?

It's a little paranoid to suggest that your TV and carpet would be "taken away" without justification for having them.
HOW many times have the Government, politicians, citizens had a campaign to ban carpet?
They have NEVER.But i DO hear about banning guns again and again...

Of course there is a reasonable limit. By law that limit really is on the extremely dangerous weaponry. Bazookas/RPGs and such. But you can own working cannons.

He's not being paranoid, he is making analogies.

It's not like someone is asking you to justify your existence.

If guns cause crime, then pencils cause mispelled words.

But if I mispelled 'mispelled', the computer's keyboard didn't do it.

had the poster said, i like things i don't need to justify that to anyone.Things within reasonable limit that is.I would have had no cause to comment.However the statement did not mention anything about reasonable limit or even legality.it simply stated I can have what i want and who is anyone to question that.

You are rationalising his argument for him, he can explain himself if he wishes and i will gladly and respectfully read and perhaps agree or disagree.

I am not so ingrained in my ways that i cannot be persuaded by logical, insightful debate.
but to stir me you need to come up with something a bit more convincing then "because i want to" when we are talking about something that is so capable of causing death.

I don't think guns "cause" crime, criminals do.But they are a quick, easy way to ensure someone dies.

Don't know if you read my first post but in OZ we have no right to bear arms and only about 10 people a year are shot.
so to me the idea of having a right to own such a dangerous weapon seems insane.At this point, unless someone can convince me otherwise.

reply to post by Miracle Man

I can't think of one reason a civilian would need an automatic weapon.

You are right they are for killing other humans only. that said here is one reason we should have them. In the event of a true government takeover, they would be highly effective in defending civilians. Fully autos are just like any other gun, when used irresponsibly they are very dangerous. They are no more dangerous though than the guns we already have, when used responsibly.

It comes down to who is behind the gun. That goes for all guns. Our forefathers didn't say that God gave us the right to own guns for hunting. God gave us guns to stop tyranny. Two years ago, I was in the same boat as you are. I just grew up being afraid of fully autos because they were always outlawed. After thinking awhile this has become my mindset on this situation.

reply to post by ventian


LOL Im not afraid of autos, I carried a SAW for 6 years and a M60 for 4.

Your reason for them being legal is because we might need them to defend ourselves against the government is a little out there for me so let me rephrase it.

Right now there is not a reason for a civilian to have an automatic weapon.

Originally posted by Miracle Man
reply to post by ventian

 

LOL Im not afraid of autos, I carried a SAW for 6 years and a M60 for 4.

Your reason for them being legal is because we might need them to defend ourselves against the government is a little out there for me so let me rephrase it.

Right now there is not a reason for a civilian to have an automatic weapon.

There is a reason for a civilian to have an automatic weapon. It's called the 2nd amendment.

Is it the best choice for fighting the government? Not unless it's providing fire support for a squad or larger action.

Personally, I would rather have a group of trained marksmen with bolt guns or semi-autos than a group that is just burning up ammo.

By the way, I carried an M60 for several years also.

reply to post by Miracle Man


Silly me, I am sure that when we need to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government, that our government will just give them to us. It seems far fetched I know, but I am just going by the reasoning behind the second amendment here. If we are allowed to have semi's and single shots, then what is the big deal. Most pistols are only for killing people (defense) and wouldn't take down an animal. Are you telling me that you are honestly against most pistols that can't be used for anything other than hunting?

reply to post by mumma in pyjamas


Good point but I stand by my statement.

reply to post by Doc Gator


I gave my opinion and besides you throwing the 2nd ammendment at me nobody can give me an honest reason why a civilian should have one.

If everyone stopped buying things because they want it and instead buy stuff because they need it things would be a lot better.

I don't care if you carried a 60, I brought it up becaue a poster thought I might be afraid of an auto.

reply to post by Miracle Man


Whatever dude, Yes if YOU or ANYONE ELSE wants to try to take my guns away come and get it. I stand by someones right to own Full Auto weapons, and will defend there right to own it.

Originally posted by ventian
reply to post by Miracle Man

 

Silly me, I am sure that when we need to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government, that our government will just give them to us. It seems far fetched I know, but I am just going by the reasoning behind the second amendment here. If we are allowed to have semi's and single shots, then what is the big deal. Most pistols are only for killing people (defense) and wouldn't take down an animal. Are you telling me that you are honestly against most pistols that can't be used for anything other than hunting?

Now pistols are a differant breed of animal.

They are practical defense weapons, I am all for them.

Besides if the government starts mowing people down and you feel the need to fight them you want to use semi's. They are more accurate and most likely you will be low on ammo.

reply to post by Miracle Man


As it is they are an amazing investment. Thanks to the NFA they are rare to come by and what is available is dropping off faster than WWII veterans.

Not to mention they are jaw-dropping show pieces and on the rare occasion you fall ass-backwards into spare cash they are a royal hoot to shoot.

What more justification does anyone need? Finding reasons to own something then subjecting those reasons to a panel for scrutiny is ridiculous.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by thisguyrighthere]

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Now thats a good reason.

Collecting.

You have to be registered in some states to collect weapons and license to do so are highly regulated.

But I don't think that will be good enough for some people.

reply to post by Miracle Man

Now pistols are a differant breed of animal.

They are practical defense weapons, I am all for them.

Besides if the government starts mowing people down and you feel the need to fight them you want to use semi's. They are more accurate and most likely you will be low on ammo.

Fully autos are practical defense weapons as well. By the time you take out three combatants with one semi auto, you would be dead. In that same time you can kill or injure many more, granted you don't spray but instead use controlled fire.

There is no more reason for a civilian to own a pistol than a fully automatic weapon. They serve the same purpose. Again, it is who is standing behind the gun that matters.

We may just have to agree to disagree on this one bud because neither one of our points seems to be getting through.

reply to post by ventian


I'm not trying to change your mind or anyone elses.. Im just giving my opinion.

Take it how you want.

Auto, semi, single-shot. It's really a moot point. IF someone is intent upon taking a life, a single-shot will do the trick just as easily as a full auto will.

Look at Switzerland, everyone gets issued a gun. I do not know what style or if full auto, semi, or mode selectable.

I, personally, think it would be a good idea. Arm every American, who can legally own, and carry, over the age of 18, with a handgun, and a rifle.

A person, knowing, that anyone, in mass, around you, having a gun, will definitely make most people reconsider firing upon another person, or committing Granted for the first few years, it might be a little grim. Over time though, crimes and such would go down.

Without gun, we are left to the average of 413 lethal objects in the average household. Knives, hammers, straws, chairs, bottles, glass cups, screw-drivers, etc.

As much as some groups of people insist that guns and defending ones self from others is unnecessary, I would counter with saying that, as long as humanity suffers from greed, and unchecked emotional responses, people will need to defend themselves from others.

I do believe that one is responsible for their own safety, and self control. Owning a gun, no matter what type, make, model, and or function, should be based upon personal responsibility. I see no reason why, someone who has no criminal history, no mental issues, etc. Cannot have various firearms, keep such said firearms, and carry a handgun as they see fit.

Until such a time as each person has their own security detail for protection, you are responsible for keeping yourself safe.

The government keeps forgetting, that gun safety and gun laws only impact the majority of LEGAL purchasing gun owners. Since when have you seen a criminal buying a gun at wal-mart or such to shoot up a group of people?

Originally posted by Miracle Man
reply to post by Doc Gator

 

I gave my opinion and besides you throwing the 2nd ammendment at me nobody can give me an honest reason why a civilian should have one.

If everyone stopped buying things because they want it and instead buy stuff because they need it things would be a lot better.

I don't care if you carried a 60, I brought it up becaue a poster thought I might be afraid of an auto.

According to that logic, nobody should buy anything other than food, water and basic shelter. I don't "need" the laptop that I am typing this on, but I like having it. I don't "need" the food that I will have for dinner tonight as I could have gathered grubs and roots from my backyard.

I don't "need" or even want an automatic weapon, but it's nice to know that it's an option.

reply to post by Doc Gator


Thats nice.

Is "OZ" what you guys call New Zealand?

I think both you guys and the Australians have some really strict gun laws right? (Compared to us) A lot of what you, I and others are saying comes from a point of reference.

I think it is fitting that people who aren't in America, even if one has lived here for awhile and gone home, don't attach that mindset.

Here, depending on where you grew up, there will be very strong sentiments about owning all kinds of guns. California shuns mgs but Nioth Carolina doesn't. Neither does Arizona.

The 2nd amendment wasn't designed for those people of personal preference. It was designed as an acknowledgement that one must be ready to fight off tyranny. It doesn't have a lot to do with today's arguments. It was a reaction to what had just occurred in this country.


Though the immediate danger of those particular days have passed, tyranny has never died. So there is an equal reason to stay in the mode of the intent of the second amendment because tryanny can arise again.


Though times change, people do not. The logic behind that right is as sound today as it was then. The reasoning is not based on the emotional content of human thought. It is based on the rational content alone.

If you read through these posts, you will see much emotional content. That is all that it is about, the emotional part.

If you think that emotional argument is rational argument, you commit a category error.

For me, I would like to have a Thompson full auto. I do not have one nor any other full auto. I want it because it is an historically significant gun. I do not need one.

To tell me I can't have one, sounds anti american to me. My state, crackifonia says I can't have one. It still sounds anti american to me.

I do not care what you have. It isn't my business to regulate you nor search your house to see what you have and violate the peace and sanctity of your home.

It isn't any of your business what I have. I am not your slave, nor are my possessions any of your business. (I'm not trying to excite you here... I am just making statements.)

More than anything else, it isn't my business to take away your bread because someone choked on a tortilla.

There is only one reason to outlaw all types of guns for a civilian population. It is to ensure that they cannot truly rise against government and take control.

These ideas come from the nation that I grew up in. It just IS cultural relativism in action as we look at it. MOST foreign cultures don't think this way and that's okay.

It isn't any of OUR business to force other nations and peoples to our point of view. But it is no one's business to disrupt ours and make us accept their point of view in a substantial way. We can just respect each other.

Anyway, from my point of view, one can argue all day about not being able to see why someone should have a full auto, or why someone should even want one, extoll this virtue, highlight that vice. That there is/is not a threat of tyranny. That one ought/ought not defend themselves against criminal armed attackes. The point is that we can if we so desire to.

At least in our country there is no serious threat to make everyone who doesn't want a gun to own one.

But there is a concerted effort. seemingly, to ensure that NO ONE owns any guns (except of course the criminals who don't give a hoot's ass anyway). So in effect, the effort is against decent and trustable people, by telling they are not decent and trustable simply because they have guns.

In my view EMOTIVELY it is the action of cowardly people who have some sort of hidden agenda going. Cowards are usually bullies. Bullies don't need any people who might stick up for themselves. This isn't the movies. You don't punch people out and become best pals for the rest of your natural lives. Sometimes bullies need to be outright destroyed.

You must always be skeptical of those who think they know what is good for YOU. That's why I do not tell you that you need a machine gun, nor others that they don't. (or a shotgun, or a pistol... ad nauseum)

The real argument here is about an irrelevant thesis argument that since a child was shot on a basketball court ( A HEINOUS THING) that submachines guns need be outlawed. huh?

A toyota screwed up so don't buy japanese cars. huh?

Hows your weather this year on OZ? I live in the desert in SoCal and it has been really weird the last 3 years.

reply to post by akalepos




Well said.

reply to post by Miracle Man


Yeah the indians should have only had bows and arrows too. They were allowed gun ownership, but why do police get military grade machine guns but the public gets basically toy guns? Why do they have the right to slaughter us and we can't defend with equal response? Makes no sense at all. It maybe like showing up with a sword while they get pistols....the 2nd Amendment was written to protect us from a tyrannical government, I don't think kitchen knives will inspire much fear in a government that wishes to use machine guns and tanks, etc. Why not just hand them the gun and load it and then ask them to get it over with? Makes no sense, no deterrant from going all the way to a dictatorship.

Just more government supremecist extremist literature and law codes.