• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are pro-2nd Amendment?

Are pro-2nd Amendment?

  • Total voters
    69
LaMidRighter said:
I did know that. The M1 Garand is an incredible weapon BTW. If I can ever get my FFLIII as a collector I want to obtain a B.A.R. 40 LMG, beautiful gun.
Click to expand...

The BAR was technically an automatic rifle rather than a LMG. It did not have a quick change barrel and it had a very limited ammo capacity (20 rounds). Yet it was loved by lots of our troops even though it was not designed for sustained suppressive fire like the LMG is
 
TurtleDude said:
The BAR was technically an automatic rifle rather than a LMG. It did not have a quick change barrel and it had a very limited ammo capacity (20 rounds). Yet it was loved by lots of our troops even though it was not designed for sustained suppressive fire like the LMG is
Click to expand...
Gotcha. I had a feeling it wasn't a legit LMG even though many people classify it as such,it's a fantastic weapon. I saw a clip of one taking a tree down somewhere, the sustained accuracy was really cool!
 
LaMidRighter said:
Gotcha. I had a feeling it wasn't a legit LMG even though many people classify it as such,it's a fantastic weapon. I saw a clip of one taking a tree down somewhere, the sustained accuracy was really cool!
Click to expand...

the BREN Gun was actually the better of the automatic weapons according to an old CSM I used to spend a lot of time with learning about stuff about 25 years ago
 
LMR I wouldn't have held you to technical specs as anything important. What I don't know about ordinance could fill books, especially compared to others. And I actually like to watch shows on weapons, Top Shot, Sons of Guns, American Guns and Lock'N Load.

The rifles used in the North Hollywood incident were 2 Romanian AIMs or Pistol Mitralieră model 1963, which is almost identical to the AKM/AKMS. 1 Norinco Type 56 S-1, 1 Heckler & Koch HK91 and 1 modified Bushmaster XM15 E2S. Again I don't know much but I'm not a gun hater just someone who doesn't want easy access.

From the movie Tombstone, Wyatt Earp, "skin that smoke wagon and see what happens", funny line.
 
grip said:
LMR I wouldn't have held you to technical specs as anything important. What I don't know about ordinance could fill books, especially compared to others. And I actually like to watch shows on weapons, Top Shot, Sons of Guns, American Guns and Lock'N Load.

The rifles used in the North Hollywood incident were 2 Romanian AIMs or Pistol Mitralieră model 1963, which is almost identical to the AKM/AKMS. 1 Norinco Type 56 S-1, 1 Heckler & Koch HK91 and 1 modified Bushmaster XM15 E2S. Again I don't know much but I'm not a gun hater just someone who doesn't want easy access.

From the movie Tombstone, Wyatt Earp, "skin that smoke wagon and see what happens", funny line.
Click to expand...

all of that stuff was banned in california and converting them is a federal felony

in fact its illegal to own any guns if you are a felon or "INTEND" to use the gun in a crime

why should access for people like me be restricted? criminals are already banned from owning them
 
TurtleDude said:
all of that stuff was banned in california and converting them is a federal felony

in fact its illegal to own any guns if you are a felon or "INTEND" to use the gun in a crime

why should access for people like me be restricted? criminals are already banned from owning them
Click to expand...

I don't think responsible people with training should be banned but unfortunately it's difficult to allow some of it as legal for certain experts. The Law doesn't always do a good job of being fair and if it's possible some of it should be rewritten. In those TV shows I mentioned they're firing off all kinds of automatic weapons, explosives and big effing guns. So if you got the bucks travel to their backyard for some fun. I don't like half the rules that exist but I can't change them or make people act sensible.
 
grip said:
I don't think responsible people with training should be banned but unfortunately it's difficult to allow some of it as legal for certain experts. The Law doesn't always do a good job of being fair and if it's possible some of it should be rewritten. In those TV shows I mentioned they're firing off all kinds of automatic weapons, explosives and big effing guns. So if you got the bucks travel to their backyard for some fun. I don't like half the rules that exist but I can't change them or make people act sensible.
Click to expand...

I guess that is the difference

freedom or safety

but I don't think restricting freedom makes us safer
 
TurtleDude said:
I guess that is the difference

freedom or safety

but I don't think restricting freedom makes us safer
Click to expand...

You think that's what I said? A law doesn't prevent you from doing anything that you don't want. How about those illegal weapons those bad guys had. You can get them and go out in the woods far enough where nobody will know and fire away till your hearts content. But if you want to make it legal, easy and acceptable by the majority at large then you'll have a lot more than me to convince. If there was a way for responsible and trained people to own and use such weapons I'm all for it. They have to draw the line somewhere and you can fight for where you think that should be but you can't boil it down a two word phrase (freedom or safety) and say that's it. Nobody will accept that kind of preposterous reasoning.
 
grip said:
You think that's what I said? A law doesn't prevent you from doing anything that you don't want. How about those illegal weapons those bad guys had. You can get them and go out in the woods far enough where nobody will know and fire away till your hearts content. But if you want to make it legal, easy and acceptable by the majority at large then you'll have a lot more than me to convince. If there was a way for responsible and trained people to own and use such weapons I'm all for it. They have to draw the line somewhere and you can fight for where you think that should be but you can't boil it down a two word phrase (freedom or safety) and say that's it. Nobody will accept that kind of preposterous reasoning.
Click to expand...

we have more than enough laws right now-too many. I should be able to buy a machine gun made YESTERDAY for the same price cops pay for one rather than settling for one made before May 19, 1986 and costing as much as a good low mileage used Lexus or BMW
 
TurtleDude said:
we have more than enough laws right now-too many. I should be able to buy a machine gun made YESTERDAY for the same price cops pay for one rather than settling for one made before May 19, 1986 and costing as much as a good low mileage used Lexus or BMW
Click to expand...

I see this isn't about your need to feel equally armed against a raiding horde of heavily armed banditos it's about "boys with toys". I have a good friend who's an ex Special Police (Air Force) and Corrections Officer and he's like you, gun bonkers. He told me once he was guarding a highly sensitive area on a base when in the rain some soldier had drunkenly wandered in. He told the GI to halt and be recognized! The guy didn't hear him and kept going, he repeated Halt and he still kept going, finally he pulled the bolt back on his M16 and the sound had the guy frozen. I ask my friend what would you have done if he kept going after that he said, "I would've unloaded the clip center mass, and never have been the same again." He was a drunk teenage soldier who didn't know where he was and couldn't hear the commands to halt over the rain. But the military wouldn't have cared because he was guarding nukes and they're very serious about that. Yet still my good friend wants a fully automatic AR15 to go with his Hungarian made Browning Hi Power, 357 Colt Python, Desert Eagle .44 mag and heaven knows what else. I trust the dude because he's responsible and trained but I still wouldn't buy him a BFG because he's bananas for weapons. Besides I couldn't afford that stuff.
 
grip said:
LMR I wouldn't have held you to technical specs as anything important. What I don't know about ordinance could fill books, especially compared to others. And I actually like to watch shows on weapons, Top Shot, Sons of Guns, American Guns and Lock'N Load.

The rifles used in the North Hollywood incident were 2 Romanian AIMs or Pistol Mitralieră model 1963, which is almost identical to the AKM/AKMS. 1 Norinco Type 56 S-1, 1 Heckler & Koch HK91 and 1 modified Bushmaster XM15 E2S. Again I don't know much but I'm not a gun hater just someone who doesn't want easy access.

From the movie Tombstone, Wyatt Earp, "skin that smoke wagon and see what happens", funny line.
Click to expand...
I'll take this at face value. I don't think restrictions are the answer in the least when it comes to armaments that are within a certain scope of control. This would include cutting weapons, blunt weapons, other hand held, and firearms. I used to be much more lax on things when I was younger but have come around to being fine with things that are provably common sense, I have no problem with "shall issue" CCW requirements due to the fact that many criminals will hide a gun to ambush others, even though most will do so regardless of the law at least there is a basis to add charges should they engage in that cowardly act(this is not a condemnation of concealment in general, rather "conceal to ambush").

The reason I believe that ordinance can be licensed without issue is due to the blast radius and storage issues, for instance C4 was the preferred explosive of the Marine corps when my cousin was in service. He tells me when it's new it's predictable and a pound can take out a city block, but as it ages it destabalizes and can blow at random. Many explosives are dangerous just by the mere existence thereof and even trained and licensed professionals can have an incident. Thus I believe it has a smaller circle of protection due to these issues.

The reason I believe all firearms should be legal is that they really can't do any harm sitting in a gun case, as well if some jackass decided to duplicate the Hollywood shootout someone with the right firearms can easily aid the police or NG called out to the scene. The only problems I've truly seen with autos are when someone doesn't take the rideup seriously and ends up throwing wild rounds due to lack of control, but I've seen people do stupid stuff with semi-autos, shotguns, and bolt-actions as well. I actually lost a cousin to the age old "throw me my weapon" mistake. That being said I believe autos are more than protected if we interpret the constitution correctly, disbarment of those arms should follow the same due process as any other firearms. No criminals, involuntary commission to a mental facility, etc. I will grant that I could even accept a simple licensure for full-autos and select fire if it is available to all who may possess firearms and are willing to pass a proficiency test and psych eval. and if the 1986 machine gun ban were to be repealed. I would concede that as a compromise.
 
Last edited:
grip said:
I see this isn't about your need to feel equally armed against a raiding horde of heavily armed banditos it's about "boys with toys". I have a good friend who's an ex Special Police (Air Force) and Corrections Officer and he's like you, gun bonkers. He told me once he was guarding a highly sensitive area on a base when in the rain some soldier had drunkenly wandered in. He told the GI to halt and be recognized! The guy didn't hear him and kept going, he repeated Halt and he still kept going, finally he pulled the bolt back on his M16 and the sound had the guy frozen. I ask my friend what would you have done if he kept going after that he said, "I would've unloaded the clip center mass, and never have been the same again." He was a drunk teenage soldier who didn't know where he was and couldn't hear the commands to halt over the rain. But the military wouldn't have cared because he was guarding nukes and they're very serious about that. Yet still my good friend wants a fully automatic AR15 to go with his Hungarian made Browning Hi Power, 357 Colt Python, Desert Eagle .44 mag and heaven knows what else. I trust the dude because he's responsible and trained but I still wouldn't buy him a BFG because he's bananas for weapons. Besides I couldn't afford that stuff.
Click to expand...

If cops my 13 year old son can outshoot (he's been putting up 475 averages in the indoor "glock" league which puts him way up in the final standings) are issued such weapons, I sure should have a right to own a few of them.

after all police don't have a greater right to use deadly force than you or I do
 
LaMidRighter said:
I'll take this at face value. I don't think restrictions are the answer in the least when it comes to armaments that are within a certain scope of control. This would include cutting weapons, blunt weapons, other hand held, and firearms. I used to be much more lax on things when I was younger but have come around to being fine with things that are provably common sense, I have no problem with "shall issue" CCW requirements due to the fact that many criminals will hide a gun to ambush others, even though most will do so regardless of the law at least there is a basis to add charges should they engage in that cowardly act(this is not a condemnation of concealment in general, rather "conceal to ambush").

The reason I believe that ordinance can be licensed without issue is due to the blast radius and storage issues, for instance C4 was the preferred explosive of the Marine corps when my cousin was in service. He tells me when it's new it's predictable and a pound can take out a city block, but as it ages it destabalizes and can blow at random. Many explosives are dangerous just by the mere existence thereof and even trained and licensed professionals can have an incident. Thus I believe it has a smaller circle of protection due to these issues.

The reason I believe all firearms should be legal is that they really can't do any harm sitting in a gun case, as well if some jackass decided to duplicate the Hollywood shootout someone with the right firearms can easily aid the police or NG called out to the scene. The only problems I've truly seen with autos are when someone doesn't take the rideup seriously and ends up throwing wild rounds due to lack of control, but I've seen people do stupid stuff with semi-autos, shotguns, and bolt-actions as well. I actually lost a cousin to the age old "throw me my weapon" mistake. That being said I believe autos are more than protected if we interpret the constitution correctly, disbarment of those arms should follow the same due process as any other firearms. No criminals, involuntary commission to a mental facility, etc. I will grant that I could even accept a simple licensure for full-autos and select fire if it is available to all who may possess firearms and are willing to pass a proficiency test and psych eval. and if the 1986 machine gun ban were to be repealed. I would concede that as a compromise.
Click to expand...

Now that's an intelligent response. The last two lines would be acceptable too me and I hereby with all my powers invested in me by umpa lumpa declare it so. Sorry dudes you're still gonna have to convince a bunch of bureaucratic, lilly loving peaceniks and do gooders. Fortunately I have my protection below ..

View attachment 67120824
 
TurtleDude said:
If cops my 13 year old son can outshoot (he's been putting up 475 averages in the indoor "glock" league which puts him way up in the final standings) are issued such weapons, I sure should have a right to own a few of them.

after all police don't have a greater right to use deadly force than you or I do
Click to expand...

Now that's scary. You sound like Kowalski from Gran Torino, "I'll blow a hole in your face and then go in the house... and sleep like a baby. You can count on that."
 
grip said:
Now that's scary. You sound like Kowalski from Gran Torino, "I'll blow a hole in your face and then go in the house... and sleep like a baby. You can count on that."
Click to expand...

what is scary is people who think that police officers have God Like power and are more trustworthy or competent with weapons than other civlians

they aren't. If I go to the local target range and pull ten people off the range at random and pull 10 officers out of the station at random I will bet my last dollar the recreational shooters know more about guns, gun safety and can out shoot the cops
 
TurtleDude said:
what is scary is people who think that police officers have God Like power and are more trustworthy or competent with weapons than other civlians

they aren't. If I go to the local target range and pull ten people off the range at random and pull 10 officers out of the station at random I will bet my last dollar the recreational shooters know more about guns, gun safety and can out shoot the cops
Click to expand...

I agree some police men is not right in the head. But we have to put up some semblance of social control. It can't be the Wild, Wild West, except maybe in Alaska. And law enforcement is the ones we give the badges and guns too. And worse still the tasers, those things hurt like a mutha. Maybe there could be an auxiliary police force made up of citizens? Duder I can't control all that's funky in the land but I don't disagree you have some good points, even the ones on your head...lol
 
grip said:
I agree some police men is not right in the head. But we have to put up some semblance of social control. It can't be the Wild, Wild West, except maybe in Alaska. And law enforcement is the ones we give the badges and guns too. And worse still the tasers, those things hurt like a mutha. Maybe there could be an auxiliary police force made up of citizens? Duder I can't control all that's funky in the land but I don't disagree you have some good points, even the ones on your head...lol
Click to expand...

the problem with your argument is you think that a select fire M4 is so much different in "dangerousness" than the stuff most people can readily buy in the sane states.

you have not provided a rational argument for the current bans
 
TurtleDude said:
the problem with your argument is you think that a select fire M4 is so much different in "dangerousness" than the stuff most people can readily buy in the sane states.

you have not provided a rational argument for the current bans
Click to expand...

I never said I agree with all the gun laws. Like LMR said there could be some certifications, psych evals and restrictions on felons but if you're willing and able, there could be auto's for people. You seem to be promoting everything for anyone all the time and I think that would be utter chaos. The cops would be losing wars with criminals all day, especially since they can't shoot straight.
 
grip said:
Now that's an intelligent response. The last two lines would be acceptable too me and I hereby with all my powers invested in me by umpa lumpa declare it so. Sorry dudes you're still gonna have to convince a bunch of bureaucratic, lilly loving peaceniks and do gooders. Fortunately I have my protection below ..

View attachment 67120824
Click to expand...
I'm not gonna lie. You made me LOL with that.
 
grip said:
I never said I agree with all the gun laws. Like LMR said there could be some certifications, psych evals and restrictions on felons but if you're willing and able, there could be auto's for people. You seem to be promoting everything for anyone all the time and I think that would be utter chaos. The cops would be losing wars with criminals all day, especially since they can't shoot straight.
Click to expand...
I won't speak for TD, but he's backed the more due process compliant laws in the past such as felons disbarred and the clinically insane in the past. He's pretty reasonable when there is logic to a proposal.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I won't speak for TD, but he's backed the more due process compliant laws in the past such as felons disbarred and the clinically insane in the past. He's pretty reasonable when there is logic to a proposal.
Click to expand...

I don't like handguns because they're so damned easy to hurt yourself or others with, see today's article Navy SEAL accidentally shoots self. War is literally hell on earth and it's disgusting to see human flesh ripped apart by armament. But I understand that's not all they're used for and we have the right to equal protection.

It doesn't mean I don't own one or would stop anyone else from having one. But even with my attitude of regulating somewhat and TD's fervent desire for disbanning we almost came to an agreement on new Laws, which shows that sensible legislators should be able to do the same. We just have self interested wing nuts for government anymore. And I don't believe the 2nd was meant to give the government the kind of absolute control over firearms they currently have. So we agree more than you think.
 
Last edited:
grip said:
I don't like handguns because they're so damned easy to hurt yourself or others with, see today's article Navy SEAL accidentally shoots self. War is literally hell on earth and it's disgusting to see human flesh ripped apart by armament. But I understand that's not all they're used for and we have the right to equal protection.

It doesn't mean I don't own one or would stop anyone else from having one. But even with my attitude of regulating somewhat and TD's fervent desire for disbanning we almost came to an agreement on new Laws, which shows that sensible legislators should be able to do the same. We just have self interested wing nuts for government anymore. And I don't believe the 2nd was meant to give the government the kind of absolute control over firearms they currently have. So we agree more than you think.
Click to expand...
Handguns are certainly something you have to invest time and research into before buying. The gun most people I know want is the Glock, it's a good gun but I do not like the internal safety mechanism, if you bump it at the wrong angle you end up priming the firing pin, not a comfortable thought. Some other guns have an unreliable safety, etc. However I would say there are shotguns that have that problem as well, we lost a well respected gunsmith here due to one notorious for misfiring(I can't remember the model and why he didn't clear it I'll never know). I think we probably all do agree in the middle somewhere though.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Handguns are certainly something you have to invest time and research into before buying. The gun most people I know want is the Glock, it's a good gun but I do not like the internal safety mechanism, if you bump it at the wrong angle you end up priming the firing pin, not a comfortable thought. Some other guns have an unreliable safety, etc. However I would say there are shotguns that have that problem as well, we lost a well respected gunsmith here due to one notorious for misfiring(I can't remember the model and why he didn't clear it I'll never know). I think we probably all do agree in the middle somewhere though.
Click to expand...

Funny you should say that because I like the Glock 19. I've owned the ever reliable wheel gun S&W .38 Special snub and a lovely .380 Bersa Thunder. I ask my gun friend what's the purpose of higher power caliber and what's effective and he explained things like static shock, amount of damage and blood loss (trauma force). Placement and accuracy of course are preferable but he told me in real world situations targets are moving, behind cover, at distances and often in low light. He said most popular calibers are above .32 because of these reasons and showed me a demonstration of an 8lb roast being shot by different calibers. Everything above .22 put nice holes in the meat but when it was hit by the .357mag it was split in two, then when the .44mag hit the thing jumped off the table and was shredded beef. He's fired a .454 Casull, .50 Desert Eagle, 500 S&W Magnum and Colt 45-70 Peacemaker. These things feel like 8lb shotputs in your hand and are hard to hold level without shaking. He told me recoil, weight and concealment are reasons the big guns aren't as practical. Then he went into barrel length, accuracy and all kind of other variables. I ask why did cops switch from the .9mm's to the .40cal and he said for stopping power. He said even though a .9mm w/ 5-6" barrels and hotloads of +P+ to +P rounds can drop a drug maniac it takes a shorter barrel and lighter piece in the .40 S&W to equal. He said now the .357 Sig is getting some attention and I always get an education from him. He told me his Browning Hi Power was Belgium made pre some year, not the Hungarian FEG.

Anyway, I can see the danger in mishandling dangerous weapons and all activities come with inherent risks. There's too much political correctness involved in law making now days and less common sense.
 
Last edited:
Yes. If you were not, you're against one of the most fundamental civil liberties the founding fathers established for the citizens of the U.S.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom