The ridiculousness of "gun control"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonNC said:
If one is a majority age law abiding citizen, there is no further restriction on gun ownership.
Click to expand...
While I am in partial agreement with your above post, this is a second aspect of gun control. Fortunately, the majority of Americans agree that access to fully automatic weapons is also needed. Hopefully, in the future, we will see where the majority that wants to see restrictions on other means of massive fire power have their say.

Those that believe what you said, there should be no other restrictions, and people should be able to buy all the ordinance they want, are small enough so that at least fully automatic weapon, armor piercing rounds and other means of killing are restricted.
JonNC said:
It is an obligation for convicting someone of a crime no less should be the prerequisite of taking away someone’s constitutionally protected rights - all of them.
Click to expand...
A right that is forced is no right. A person can also elect to simply plea guilty, or to have a judge hear his case. Juries are utilized in a fraction of all cases. To do as you suggest would require all adults to give up a week every month or two to go serve on a jury.

I would agree with what you said only on the condition that the stature disallow an assault plea to be plead down to allow for firearms, or make a place for that to be part of every plea deal on an assault case.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
While I am in partial agreement with your above post, this is a second aspect of gun control. Fortunately, the majority of Americans agree that access to fully automatic weapons is also needed. Hopefully, in the future, we will see where the majority that wants to see restrictions on other means of massive fire power have their say.

Those that believe what you said, there should be no other restrictions, and people should be able to buy all the ordinance they want, are small enough so that at least fully automatic weapon, armor piercing rounds and other means of killing are restricted.
Click to expand...
Actually, that isn’t what I said. I was talking about the restrictions on individuals specifically, not on the type of weapons. I have no problem with the current level of restriction on assault rifles, i.e. , selectable or fully automatic rifles. I have no issue with weapons that one cannot bear being restricted.
 
JonNC said:
If one is a majority age law abiding citizen, there is no further restriction on gun ownership.
Click to expand...
If one is a senior age law abiding citizen, there is no restriction on gun ownership.

The snap in a senior’s leg-kick just ain’t what it used to be!
 
Senior age restriction is self restricting. I used to be pretty good with my ol M1 (universal club with firing option - but still a fine unit) but between arthritis and my eyesight I wouldn’t dare use it. Doubt I’d appreciate the kick of the 30 06 either.
 
He removed his pistol grip and replaced it with a padded shoulder mount. We both laughed about how complying with the SAFE act actually made it easier to shoot.
 
Where in my reply did I indicate that people with a history of violence should own a gun?
 
That is absolute nonsense. The intention of a gun owner is to protect himself from harm, and I don’t know a single person who hopes to have to use his or her weapon. Your statement seems to criminalize people whose only concern is for the safety of their family.
 
Fuerza said:
The intention of a gun owner is to protect himself from harm, and I don’t know a single person who hopes to have to use his or her weapon.
Click to expand...
I never said that I would hope to use a gun on anyone. I certainly would hope not to. But if I do have to use my gun it better do some harm because that’s the reason I bought it. Otherwise, why not just buy a Nerf gun?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top