Ak-47

[BigAls87Z28]

It never would, and not because of some silly "right" to own a gun, but the industry that makes guns would probably have something to say.
Hell, look what happened to ammo prices and gun sales when a democrat was elected as President. Smith & Wesson, Colt, etc etc should write the DNC a check every month.

I still do not buy that CCW = Safer neighborhoods.

[j0n]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

It never would, and not because of some silly "right" to own a gun, but the industry that makes guns would probably have something to say.
Hell, look what happened to ammo prices and gun sales when a democrat was elected as President. Smith & Wesson, Colt, etc etc should write the DNC a check every month.

I still do not buy that CCW = Safer neighborhoods.

Feel free to not buy it. The proof is in the statistics. I don't know how else to enlighten you, Al.

[crainholio]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

So, you would protect that same constitution if the 2nd was repealed?
Not that I want that, I just wanted to see the reaction.

Arguing hypotheticals is pointless.

Conditions or circumstances which might lead to a Constitutional amendment eliminating any portion of the Bill of Rights do not presently exist. And I haven't seen any mention of a Constitutional Convention, either.

[BigAls87Z28]

You talk about Texas, where everything is spread out and compare it to a state like NJ where we have dense population.
I could point you to Japan, where guns are illegal and gun crimes are way below.
I can show you that as gun sales increase, gun crime increase in the US.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

The graphs that show Florida, Texas, and Michigan show decrease, but the country as a whole also saw decrease in murder rates.

[WildBillyT]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

You talk about Texas, where everything is spread out and compare it to a state like NJ where we have dense population.
I could point you to Japan, where guns are illegal and gun crimes are way below.
I can show you that as gun sales increase, gun crime increase in the US.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

The graphs that show Florida, Texas, and Michigan show decrease, but the country as a whole also saw decrease in murder rates.

Correlation does not imply causation. Other factors are always at play.

[BigAls87Z28]

Hey, Im not the one trying to prove that CCW = safety. So far, guns are needed for protection and the more guns people have, the safer America is. I don't buy that at all.

[WildBillyT]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

Hey, Im not the one trying to prove that CCW = safety. So far, guns are needed for protection and the more guns people have, the safer America is. I don't buy that at all.

Owning guns is a necessity for people who live in the more rural parts of the country. And there are a lot of those. For people who live in high crime areas, I'd say CCW is very beneficial as well. You can't argue that guns for all = more safety any more than you can argue that no guns equal the same thing.

[BigAls87Z28]

Originally Posted by WildBillyT

Owning guns is a necessity for people who live in the more rural parts of the country. And there are a lot of those. For people who live in high crime areas, I'd say CCW is very beneficial as well. You can't argue that guns for all = more safety any more than you can argue that no guns equal the same thing.

Sure I could, Japan.

Sure, and that's what states rights are there for, because what is good for New Jersey is not good for states like Texas or Maine.

[WildBillyT]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

Sure I could, Japan.

Sure, and that's what states rights are there for, because what is good for New Jersey is not good for states like Texas or Maine.

No, you can't. Their values are different than ours. Guilt, shame, honor, etc. That plays a factor just like their gun laws.

How about Great Britain? Their firearms laws are way stricter than ours but they have a higher crime rate than us. And our population is 310,765,000 vs their 61,792,000.

I'm not going to start another argument, but comparing what works for other countries thinking it can apply to us is wrong. Happens all the time surrounding universal health care.

[bad64chevelle]

Originally Posted by 7998

Besides my 1942 M-1 Garand which is just like the one my grandfather dragged across europe can flip you over backwards long before Jerome can get in range with an AK. Should we ban them too.

Please, don't even joke around about the banning of the M1 Garand, and don't get me started about how the M1Carbine is banned in NJ.

On another note, this thread is so full of fail now, that I had an entire post written up but deleted it since I know it would only add fuel to the fire.

[BigRocsFirebird]

Originally Posted by bad64chevelle

Please, don't even joke around about the banning of the M1 Garand, and don't get me started about how the M1Carbine is banned in NJ.

On another note, this thread is so full of fail now, that I had an entire post written up but deleted it since I know it would only add fuel to the fire.

There's a lot of fuel for this fire, I'm shocked it didn't get locked. But this is like the biggest thread I've made sofar. But I want to get a M1 Garand bad

[WildBillyT]

Originally Posted by BigRocsFirebird

There's a lot of fuel for this fire, I'm shocked it didn't get locked. But this is like the biggest thread I've made sofar. But I want to get a M1 Garand bad

It's staying respectful for the most part.

[bad64chevelle]

Originally Posted by BigRocsFirebird

There's a lot of fuel for this fire, I'm shocked it didn't get locked. But this is like the biggest thread I've made sofar. But I want to get a M1 Garand bad

Out of what I own, it is definitely my favorite. An absolute beast, but such a joy to fire.

[BigRocsFirebird]

Originally Posted by WildBillyT

It's staying respectful for the most part.

Yeah it is but I just figured something I started would get shutdown cause its me but idk what al is on. He's sticking to his point strong but hey its his opinion

[NastyEllEssWon]

yeah al, the second amendment is also a protection for civilians against those that are supposed to protect you. if the govt wanted to just come in your house and take everything you own how are you going to stop them, they have more firepower than you now. there needs to be a level playing field. if the govt has the right to use it to protect you, you have the right to use it to protect yourself from them.


on a sidenote...what would happen if another country invaded us and we're all running around with 22 caliber pea shooters.

[j0n]

If shall-issue CCW works in 40+ states, why won't it work here?

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

So you need a 100 round drum slung under an AK-47 to protect your house?

The point is the magazin restrictions are waaaaaay too strict. Honestly besides 2 what is the difference between a 15 rd magaizine and a 17 round mag that my Taurus originally came with? 2 LOUSY ROUNDS, that is considered HIGH CAPACITY. Seriously? Give me a friggin break. If 2 rounds is going to make or break a shootout God help us all.

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

Average Americans are not law enforcement or military.

I dont think this statement could be more incorrect. When the military DRAFTS people do you think they give a rats ass how you do on your ASVAB? (sorry if I got the spelling wrong) If you do piss poor on your test, guess where you wind up? Infantry. I knew a guy who was drafted in (korea I think) he is a super smart egghead but he got drafted. He is a skinny, no muscle guy who could barely get the grenade out of the bunker during training. He told me at the end of basic training the Sargent or who ever was erasing his scores to make him pass.

When the Bill of rights was drafted WE, the average American, WERE the military and the law written so we could defend ourselves from enemies foreign and domestic. I would consider a theif an enemy, wouldnt YOU?

Originally Posted by WildBillyT

A 2nd amendment repeal would leave a lot of Americans extremely vulnerable.

Holy s***, never thought about that before but yeah. I think a lot of people would be seriously f-ed.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

ANY state law pretty much infringes on our RIGHT to bear arms.



I think the biggest thing with the state laws, which j0n has pointed out really well and several times, that laws ONLY hinder LAW ABIDING citizens.



Also I will have more about the permit thing soon.

[WildBillyT]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

Holy s***, never thought about that before but yeah. I think a lot of people would be seriously f-ed.

I have been in some very remote parts of the country that have people living there, but are probably HOURS out of range of local law enforcement. I can imagine that living there means providing all local services on your own.

[BigRocsFirebird]

Originally Posted by WildBillyT

I have been in some very remote parts of the country that have people living there, but are probably HOURS out of range of local law enforcement. I can imagine that living there means providing all local services on your own.

That's a scarey thing. Helps far away for some of those people.

[BigAls87Z28]

Originally Posted by j0n

If shall-issue CCW works in 40+ states, why won't it work here?

Who said it wouldn't work here?
For the most part, I'm playing devils advocate here. Ive shot guns since I was 12 years old, and was a member of the NRA for a long time.

Yes, laws are only designed to restrict the law-abiding. I love that one.
I don't see how having MORE guns, removing restrictions off all guns means that things will be easier?

I support gun control, and gun education.

[j0n]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

Who said it wouldn't work here?

Seems like you did.

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

I still do not buy that CCW = Safer neighborhoods.

[BigAls87Z28]

No, I dont think that CCW would mean safer streets.
I do think that it would "work" in the sense that people would be civil about it. Problem I have is that I think some people will think CCW means they are peace-keepers.

[Firebird92]

Originally Posted by WildBillyT

Right, but who would be slinging around an M60 or AK for home defense? I would guess that the best home defense weapon is one that requires the least amount of aiming and delivers the most amount of stopping power at a reasonable distance. I think a pistol gripped semi auto 12 gauge would be all you'd ever need. Like a Benelli M1 or even a SPAS 12. "It's for protection" only goes so far in my opinion.

my dad has a S&W 500 on the bed side ....... even if you miss the point is still clear

AL no matter how many laws, bans limits or restriction there are if someone wants something they will get it and do what they want with it just like drugs illegal but there are people that can get them in a matter of seconds.There is no safe place where there are people there is some sense or crime

[j0n]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

No, I dont think that CCW would mean safer streets.
I do think that it would "work" in the sense that people would be civil about it. Problem I have is that I think some people will think CCW means they are peace-keepers.

And those few people (if any) would be convicted and tossed in jail soon after the process goes into effect. For reference, when Florida went to shall-issue CCW in 1987, they issued 204,108 permits in 6 years. In those same 6 years, EIGHTEEN permits were revoked. That sort of hard data surely supports your "vigilante fire-fights" stance.

[j0n]

Originally Posted by Firebird92

my dad has a S&W 500 on the bed side ....... even if you miss the point is still clear

No offense to your father but that is a terrible choice for a nightstand gun. The recoil is tough to control with one hand at the range, let alone in a high-stress situation. Nevermind the fact that the majority of the round's energy won't transfer to your target. A .357 is the best choice if you use a revolver.