If you're not a member of the NRA, you might want to be now

ucfireman said:

I'll address the "coward" comment.
If you were assigned to a school as a resource officer. And you may or may not have a "bullet proof vest". And you knew the shooter had a high powered rifle that would go right through your vest. Would you be so fast to chase the idiot down? Or would you take a position and either wait for back up or prepare for the inevitable?
I know everyone that has a CCWP or a gun thinks that they would chase down the "bad guy" and be the hero. But there is a think called self preservation or being cautious and planning your move.
Most police officers while trained to pursue the shooter would do the same thing. Just because you train doesn't mean your not going to think and hesitate when confronted with this type of situation.
Don't judge unless you were there and in his shoes!
That man probably has a wife, kids and grandkids and just wants the same thing as everyone. To see his family at the end of his shift.
Yes he's a cop and made that decision willingly, but he is also human.
Monday morning quarterbacking is too easy.

Click to expand...

Great point ucfireman.

Thanks for the reminder I renewed today.

Scrub Buck said:

Several question for all the supporters of private citizens possessing these weapons.

Would you own one if they only had three or five round magazines?

Click to expand...

5 is as low as you can go with an ar15 i believe, but yes.

Scrub Buck said:

If you would why?

Click to expand...

An answer based on what you're implying is, it wouldn't change anything, you can cycle through 4 5rnd mags and it would only take maybe 3 to 4 secs longer than a 20rnd mag.

Scrub Buck said:

Why do citizens of the USA need a weapon that has the capability to fire 20 to 30 rounds before a reload is required?

Click to expand...

Because it makes no difference if you have 5 or 100 rounds between reloads.

If a shooter was only concerned with number of kills they would use buckshot in a shotgun, 15 pellets for every shot will do more damage in a crowd, instead most of them are clueless and have listened to the media too much on the dangers of the AR.

Scrub Buck said:

What do you use the weapon with a 20 or 30 round magazine for other than destroying public firing ranges and killing people? If you need it for hunting.....I think you have bigger problems and should try other activities.

Click to expand...

What happens when a shooter with a bolt action holes up and starts taking people out at several hundred yards? do we do away with rifling to make guns non accurate at those distances? see? where does it end?

Scrub Buck said:

I personally have no idea. I served my country for 20 years and only see one purpose for these weapons.

Click to expand...

What you used was not an AR.

Scrub Buck said:

Are they fun to shoot yes. If you ever have to use it for the purpose it was intended for it is no fun. Including being on the wrong end of it. If you want to have one for awhile join the military. You can have it for free and use it for the purpose it was designed for. Protecting your country and killing people.

Click to expand...

Why would I fight for freedom of a country that took away my freedom?

Scrub Buck said:

Seems a little simple minded. You can so you will. How about all the dead people? Wonder how they feel about that? Good enough I guess?????

Click to expand...

How about all the dead people that died for you to have that right?? How would they feel about your statement??

Anyone that's starts a sentence with "I support the 2nd Amendmen but..." doesn't.

It took me 10 years to finally get them to stop sending me letters begging for money why would I want to join back up now?

"Just to educate you, I use an AR and a SU 16 to coyote and hog hunt. I love the extra capacity mags when the action is hot so I don’t have to reload as much. I CHOOSE to use such a weapon also because they are mobile and light and because the 2nd Amendment says I can own one! "

This is where I am different. I care about clean one shot kills, no matter the game animal. I don't take risk that can wound. Yes, mistakes happen, but more of an opportunity random firing. Do I hate your AR15, no. I just don't see the need for me to hunt with one. It's not my style. Perhaps if I wasn't shown a video of some of my employees spraying hogs with bump-stops in SW GA last year I might feel different. But I saw it...and as much as I love hunting, that in my opinion isn't how the creator intended us to act.

Back to my original post. I am mediator also. There is always a way to come together and win. I never said give up our rights, I said I personally don't see the need for an automatic weapon. I challenged the NRA to work to help find a solution, thereby changing the way some view them also. If you can't see that standing firm isn't always the best answer, I challenge you to observe what goes on in most business deals. People make considerations and alternative resolutions all the time. Just food for thought. I think our president is looking at just such alternative solutions as well. Im glad I voted for him

Woodsman69 said:

It took me 10 years to finally get them to stop sending me letters begging for money why would I want to join back up now?

Click to expand...

And you don’t know? ...

Woodsman69 said:

It took me 10 years to finally get them to stop sending me letters begging for money why would I want to join back up now?

Click to expand...

Go back to sleep FSWho?

MYRX said:

"Just to educate you, I use an AR and a SU 16 to coyote and hog hunt. I love the extra capacity mags when the action is hot so I don’t have to reload as much. I CHOOSE to use such a weapon also because they are mobile and light and because the 2nd Amendment says I can own one! "

This is where I am different. I care about clean one shot kills, no matter the game animal. I don't take risk that can wound. Yes, mistakes happen, but more of an opportunity random firing. Do I hate your AR15, no. I just don't see the need for me to hunt with one. It's not my style. Perhaps if I wasn't shown a video of some of my employees spraying hogs with bump-stops in SW GA last year I might feel different. But I saw it...and as much as I love hunting, that in my opinion isn't how the creator intended us to act.

Back to my original post. I am mediator also. There is always a way to come together and win. I never said give up our rights, I said I personally don't see the need for an automatic weapon. I challenged the NRA to work to help find a solution, thereby changing the way some view them also. If you can't see that standing firm isn't always the best answer, I challenge you to observe what goes on in most business deals. People make considerations and alternative resolutions all the time. Just food for thought. I think our president is looking at just such alternative solutions as well. Im glad I voted for him

Click to expand...

Bless your heart is all I can say. They want to start confiscation with the AR type rifle, then the high capacity semi shotgun, then the bolt gun, then ..... You sorta see how it goes?? Go ahead and ride that fence and I may have to come back on here one day and say I told you so!

1

There are some things that are not negotiable. As stated several times, it is a slippery slope.

MYRX said:

If you can't see that standing firm isn't always the best answer, I challenge you to observe what goes on in most business deals.

Click to expand...

The 2nd Amendment and my right to defend myself is not a business deal.

Scrub Buck said:

We are not talking about single shot rifles. Please step into modern era times. I support 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS. Just believe things need to change.

Click to expand...

The purpose of the second amendment is to insure the people are as well armed as the government. This is to enable the people to protect themselves from tyranny, both foreign and domestic. If you are not as well armed as the government you cannot ensure your liberty. What types of firearm available at any given period in history is irrelevant.

ucfireman said:

I'll address the "coward" comment.
If you were assigned to a school as a resource officer. And you may or may not have a "bullet proof vest". And you knew the shooter had a high powered rifle that would go right through your vest. Would you be so fast to chase the idiot down? Or would you take a position and either wait for back up or prepare for the inevitable?
I know everyone that has a CCWP or a gun thinks that they would chase down the "bad guy" and be the hero. But there is a think called self preservation or being cautious and planning your move.
Most police officers while trained to pursue the shooter would do the same thing. Just because you train doesn't mean your not going to think and hesitate when confronted with this type of situation.
Don't judge unless you were there and in his shoes!
That man probably has a wife, kids and grandkids and just wants the same thing as everyone. To see his family at the end of his shift.
Yes he's a cop and made that decision willingly, but he is also human.
Monday morning quarterbacking is too easy.

Click to expand...

The Sheriff of the department doesn't agree with your assessment, and I'm pretty sure the rest of his department doesn't either, when you pass mandate you take an oath to "serve and protect" not " hide and cower" , an officer that arrived on the scene a few minutes after the shooting started is who ratted on the deputy that stayed outside. So he obviously didn't agree with what the deputy did, as well as a multitude of officers across the country.

And I can guarantee you the deputy had a bullet proof vest , all major departments have them, whether he was wearing it or not is on him, that doesn't change what his oath was, to " Serve and Protect " the problem was he was close to retirement, he was an older guy, and evidently he was just plain too scared to go in ,

Scrub Buck said:

Several question for all the supporters of private citizens possessing these weapons.

Would you own one if they only had three or five round magazines?

If you would why?

If you would not why?

Why do citizens of the USA need a weapon that has the capability to fire 20 to 30 rounds before a reload is required?

What do you use the weapon with a 20 or 30 round magazine for other than destroying public firing ranges and killing people? If you need it for hunting.....I think you have bigger problems and should try other activities.

I personally have no idea. I served my country for 20 years and only see one purpose for these weapons.

Are they fun to shoot yes. If you ever have to use it for the purpose it was intended for it is no fun. Including being on the wrong end of it. If you want to have one for awhile join the military. You can have it for free and use it for the purpose it was designed for. Protecting your country and killing people.

Please educate me??????

Click to expand...

Answer? Cause the Government has the same 20 to 30 round magazines,,, so should we.

MYRX said:

I hunt and have since 1977. Yes our 2nd Amendment rights are being threatened. I strongly believe in the right to bear arms. But see no need to own AR15 assault weapons! Sorry if that offends you. I have taken game all across America and have an impressive trophy room. A bolt action did it all! Stupid acts of hate, are resulting in our potential loss of gun rights. Most done with assault weapons. I have a weapons carry license. I own several pistols and have them ready for protection in my home, etc. I see no need for automatic weapons. As an operations manager at a large plant, those employees that sit around reading "solider of fortune " are questionable and leave a lot to be desired. Again just like you want to protect the 2nd amendment as I do, I am voicing my right to free speech. Sometimes, the NRA needs to give an inch! That's why I dropped my membership. It is too easy for a nut to obtain a weapon, and yes I don't have all the solutions to control it. But we have a problem in this country. The idiots shooting up schools and churches are your enemies, and helping the left side take away your rights. So why shouldn't the NRA at least do something to help solve the problem!

Click to expand...

You're and idiot. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. I dont think you should be allowed to own guns because you dont know that. SMH

ucfireman said:

I'll address the "coward" comment.
If you were assigned to a school as a resource officer. And you may or may not have a "bullet proof vest". And you knew the shooter had a high powered rifle that would go right through your vest. Would you be so fast to chase the idiot down? Or would you take a position and either wait for back up or prepare for the inevitable?
I know everyone that has a CCWP or a gun thinks that they would chase down the "bad guy" and be the hero. But there is a think called self preservation or being cautious and planning your move.
Most police officers while trained to pursue the shooter would do the same thing. Just because you train doesn't mean your not going to think and hesitate when confronted with this type of situation.
Don't judge unless you were there and in his shoes!
That man probably has a wife, kids and grandkids and just wants the same thing as everyone. To see his family at the end of his shift.
Yes he's a cop and made that decision willingly, but he is also human.
Monday morning quarterbacking is too easy.

Click to expand...

Would you want this cop protecting your kids?
Not me. He should of done his job.

Wait till one of these morons uses a 12ga with 00. The carnage would be indescribable - far more than the AR could impose.
Oh and BTW , the Virginia Tech shooter wasted 32 people with a Glock 19

Controlling weapons is the goal.
The Democratic movement can not attain its goal of socialist domination of the world with pesky armed citizens challenging it.
That is it in a nut shell.
It's not realy about kids getting shot. It's about removing obstacles to their goal.
And there are plenty of useful idiots that are willing to help them.
If you think I'm a nut, then explain why they are going after weapons that are statistically almost never used in crime? And are silent on handguns that dominate the gun death world? And why no mention of thousands of brown children killed in our big cities?
It is NOT about AR15s. It is about control.

The Second Amendment specifically referred to military grade hardware of the day. That should be enough to justify civilian ownership of the AR-15.

The challenge, if we wanted to allow them to be banned, is that mechanically, you can't ban them without banning the Remington 742, the Browning BAR, and a number of others.

Functionally, you can't ban them without making every other semi-auto illegal.

If the kicker is the detachable magazine, now you are impacting Savage, Remington, Kimber, and a bunch of other bolt action rifles.

I had a very civil discussion this week with someone I work with. He leans left, but is very intelligent. Not a gun owner.

When I explained to him that there were hundreds of other guns that would be affected, his answer was that he didn't care. He was apologetic that it might impact hunters, but "nobody need that kind of firepower"

I would still hunt if it was single shot or muzzle loader only, but that's not the point. The Second Amendment was specifically written to authorize military grade weapons, in the event that we needed to defend ourselves against our government. Which was EXACTLY what they had just finished doing.

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.

Is there part of SHALL NOT that you don't understand?

Or is it "regulated" that gives you trouble? In that time period, regulated typically meant trained or indicated proficiency.

Is it "militia"? If so, here's a few quotes -

James Madison: “A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789, emphasis added.

James Madison: “As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia.” (notes of debates in the 1787 Federal Convention)

George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

Encroachments on our Liberty, exactly what is being proposed by attempting to ban the AR-15, are exactly why the Founding Fathers attempted to leave no room for misinterpretation when they wrote this amendment. I only wish that they had out it first, or added that it was the one to guarantee the rest.

Apologies for the length.