gun rights

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
  1. joe246
    our first issue well discuss it, create bills(bills will state a praticuler stance on a issue), the bill with the most votes is the coalitions stance currently on that issue. so state your feelings toward gun rights if you want make a bill then vote. i support handgun and hunting rifles to be allowed but submachine guns and assualt rifles to be outlawed.

    what do you think though?
  2. Guy Incognito
    Guy Incognito
    I am currently in the process of researching this issue, so I can only give an incomplete opinion subject to change. But my view is that guns ought to be allowed in the right hands. This means restricting handguns and hunting rifles from people who have not demonstrated the capacity to use them safely, while allowing assault rifles for people, such as collectors, who can demonstrably own them safely and with the proper licensure. My hypothesis is that Finland's gun regulation regime is one of the closest to ideal. But, as I say, I'm still in the process of researching this so I may change my mind later.
  3. lizzie
    Many hunters use "assault" rifles for hunting, and they aren't any more dangerous than what most people call hunting rifles- it's a term that has been uesd to elicit fear. I fully support gun rights.
  4. Guy Incognito
    Guy Incognito
    @lizzie, what do you mean by "fully?" Does this mean that mental patients and ex-convicts should be allowed to own guns? How about children?
  5. joe246
    What do you mean by assault rifle? I define define it as a military rifle such as a ak47 or m16
  6. stinagen
    and what are you hunting where you need a M16 with a extended 30 round clip?
  7. lizzie
    "Fully" means I support gun rights for anyone unless they have proven themselves to be unfit first. "Mental patients" covers a broad spectrum of conditions, and in and of itself does not preclude one from the ability to own a gun imo. Children? Many children learn to handle firearms, especially in high-hunting areas. Ex-convicts? It depends on what they were in prison for. If they were in for armed offenses and/or murder, then maybe no. Otoh, if someone has paid their debt to society, the question is whether or not they should have the same rights and you and me. It's a kind of "iffy" question to me.

    A true assault rifle must have a selector switch which has the ability to make it fully automatic. Lesislators tried to change the definition. When I refer to the assault rifle ban, or use of assault rifles, I'm referring to the ones that were banned, and not actually fully-auto.
  8. joe246
    in my opinion the m16 or ak47 or their variations such as the ar15 have no place in a civilians hands for theyre not used personal protection or hunting
  9. RyrineaHaruno
    I am also in the process of researching the issue thought I do think M-16 aren't fully approved by the gun rights law, but I will comment that I have read many version of the law. M-16 are military rifles that are able to shoot 700–950 rounds/min, so I would say they don't belong in civilians hands.

    I am also interested to find out what you mean by fully allowed Lizzie?
  10. lizzie
    RH- read my post a couple of slots up the page. Hopefully, I explained it adequately.
Results 1 to 10 of 23
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast