an incredible new challenge - and we all gotta step up!!

[grayfox]

ps, I grew up and went to school in the 50's and 60's, in the midwest where there were plenty of guns in the backs of pickups. And zero airport security. So, yeah, I remember those times as well.

[howl]

If the government has RPGs and tanks then the people must have them, too. Anything more powerful than what civilians have should be stored offshore. Weapons are for defense of the people from threats from governments here and abroad, not for defense of government from the people.

I wonder how anyone can see those cops standing guard outside the house of the cop who refused to go in the school to help and think the government is on their side. They are on their side, not yours.

The education establishment is on the side of themselves and their progressive agenda, not the students. They will use any crisis to further their agenda. The agenda is disarmament and subjugation.

If you don't believe that, look at your tax bill versus their salaries. Look at what happens if you resist them taking your children. Who sets their salaries? They already think they own your children and your bank account. Next they want to disarm you so they can own you, too.

[stanc]

The anti-gunners will continue to ply their agenda regardless of what we say or do...

Of course. But, that doesn't negate my point: "Pro-gun" people who advocate restrictions on firearms and/or accessories, are aiding the anti-gunners.

Stan, with all due respect there are already some restrictions in place and no one seems to be suffering, nor do they feel constitutional rights have been violated (at least I haven't heard any).

Then you haven't been paying attention. There are many in the Horde (as well as the entire shooting community) who consider the NFA and other laws to be in violation of the Second Amendment.

Insofar as "suffering" is concerned, anyone who wants to buy a machine gun now is faced with paying exorbitant prices as a result of the 1986 federal ban on new manufacture.

1. NFA's, auto weapons must be registered.
2. No bazookas or rpg's in private hands.
3. No antiaircraft weapons in your backyard.
4. No 155 mm howitzers, or operating German 88's allowed in neighborhoods, no operating tanks allowed.
5. No chemical weapons, sarin, etc.
6. You can't buy C4 at Cabelas or anywhere else legally (that I know of).

I'm not sure about #5 and #6, but there are plenty of weapons like bazookas, recoilless rifles, artillery, and tanks in private hands.

Privately owned:

Bazooka ----------------- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0jpAKfmknw
Recoilless rifle ---------- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ajMeiM3IHA
40mm antiaircraft gun - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSp7CipN1pw
German 88 -------------- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_bGczFQIOc
Artillery ------------------ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eV8N0bUzA0
Tank

I'm not anti-gun. I am anti-hallucinogenic drugs and anti-uncontrolling controlled substances.

I'm pro-freedom. I don't care if people use hallucinogenic drugs and other controlled substances.

I am totally pro-2A and pro-constitution.

I don't want my next door neighbor to have Rpg's or a missile bank on the back of their truck.

If you want them to be legally prohibited, then your second sentence contradicts the first. The 2A does not say it's okay to ban or restrict any types of arms.

Are these arms in the term "keep and bear arms"?

Yes. As written, the 2A covers all types of arms.

Actually in colonial times I think private ownership of cannon may have been possible...

It was possible then, and is still possible now.

[brian y]

Hey Stanc, you say "I'm pro-freedom. I don't care if people use hallucinogenic drugs and other controlled substances" so how do you feel about these folks having guns?, It is becoming an on going argument here in Oregon since Pot is now legal.

[stanc]

As long as they're not committing crimes with guns, I'm okay with it.

[dammitman]

I shouldn't weigh in as I have not read every post in this thread. but, I have only one outward feeling about this and its that "they" are just never satisfied never ever. if we allow "them" to ban bumpstocks, 100 round magazines as inwardly I feel like they will be, we ALL KNOW THAT WILL NOT BE ENOUGH!!! "they" will just come back in a while and want more. some things I don't need or use but,,I MUST FIGHT TO PROTECT THEM FOR THOSE WHO DO because I know as well as we all do that they will eventually come after what I use while exersizing my 2nd amendment rights. its simple as that. we are going to lose a little at a time but they most assuredly get to you too eventually.

[Klem]

Banning bump stocks will not satisfy 'them', not because their agenda is incremental but for the simple reason that it won't stop the mass murders. Bump stocks and 100rd mags have only been used in one mass murder. All others have been committed with 30rd mags and using semi-auto fire. This includes overseas murders like Australia in 1996 (35 dead) and Norway in 2011 (77 dead) . A pro-gun argument would be, if you cannot guarantee the removal of all assault rifles from the few murderers intent on accessing these things then it is a clumsy and narrow-focussed way to stop these crimes.

The Norwegian murderer used an unlicensed Ruger Mini 14 to commit his atrocity, and the Australian used an unlicensed AR15 that he claims he purchased for cash under the counter at a Tasmanian gun shop. The point being that neither of these two murderers were entitled possess firearms in places that are more restricted than the US. This suggests that banning assault rifles in a place with porous borders and black market access will not completely eliminate mass murders using semi-auto's. Unless the argument is that there will still be mass murders but fewer than otherwise...So then, how many mass murders in a population of 360million justifies the emasculation of a sizable portion who derive a sense of cultural identity from these artefacts? To some anti gunners no amount of mass murders justifies access to semi-auto's whereas most pro gunners believe their right to ownership is inviolate and we should look elsewhere for the solution (e.g. mental health care)...and so the debate goes round and round.

[dammitman]

bite by bite. no debate from me at all. they are going to ban something, I feel pretty certain its gonna be bumpstocks (with fine print) and it is not gonna do anything to stop mass shootings at all.