Explain this to me as if I am a 5 year old.

[mrmiller21]

@mrmiller21 dont delete your thread starters.

I'll keep this simple. Someone please explain to me why civilians need to be allowed to own rifles that were designed for use in war. And why is it that banning assault rifles would be a "slippery slope" when banning fully automatic rifles is completely acceptable to gun owners? The reality is, we have always drawn lines at which civilians are limited by law with regard to which weapons they may own. Artillery pieces and mortars are also disallowed for home defense. You'd like my opinion? Oh, sure. I believe gun manufacturers and the billions spent to lobby and advertise...to reach people like you and me with alarmist nonsense is largely responsible for the rhetoric against controlling assault weapons. Gun companies have become quite wealthy selling AR platform rifles and other weapons of war. Is it because they are patriots? Ha. Yeah, that's it. They are worried about you defending your home against all those invaders that none of use have yet encountered. If any of my words here could possibly be construed as name-calling, I promise I have not used any such language. I look forward to a thoughtful discussion of this topic and reading the logical and honest posts by members here. If you would like to provide statistics, please include the sources, and it might be best to make the sources something other than "some guy's site on the interweb." Have a great day, fellow gun owners and citizens. I am a USAF veteran who owns a dozen or so firearms.

 

[Mgderf]

It's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.
Need has nothing to do with it.

 

[jagee]

Who says I accept banning fully automatic guns? I know an INGO member or two who legally own full auto stuff. I've shot it. I want some for my own, but can't justify spending that kind of money.

I also want a tank.

 

[dieselrealtor]

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Because the founders had just won a war where they realized that had the citizens not owned the very same (or better) weapons the British army had, they’d never had won the war for independence.

They knew the armed citizenry was the last check on a government bent on oppressing them.

It’s that simple.

The citizenry should be able to own any weapon any government employee is issued and no weapon denied to the citizenry ought to be issued to any government employee.

 

[Cavman]

I'll keep this simple. Someone please explain to me why civilians need to be allowed to own rifles that were designed for use in war. And why is it that banning assault rifles would be a "slippery slope" when banning fully automatic rifles is completely acceptable to gun owners? The reality is, we have always drawn lines at which civilians are limited by law with regard to which weapons they may own. Artillery pieces and mortars are also disallowed for home defense. You'd like my opinion? Oh, sure. I believe gun manufacturers and the billions spent to lobby and advertise...to reach people like you and me with alarmist nonsense is largely responsible for the rhetoric against controlling assault weapons. Gun companies have become quite wealthy selling AR platform rifles and other weapons of war. Is it because they are patriots? Ha. Yeah, that's it. They are worried about you defending your home against all those invaders that none of use have yet encountered. If any of my words here could possibly be construed as name-calling, I promise I have not used any such language. I look forward to a thoughtful discussion of this topic and reading the logical and honest posts by members here. If you would like to provide statistics, please include the sources, and it might be best to make the sources something other than "some guy's site on the interweb." Have a great day, fellow gun owners and citizens. I am a USAF veteran who owns a dozen or so firearms.

So as a usaf veteran I am sure you've been to countries like Iraq or Afghanistan where they weren't allowed to have guns.. how well did that end up for them? And we should be allowed to own fully auto without a stupid tax stamp or having to buy at a premium of 30k? And explain it like your 5? Okay. Well unless ya ya don't want your mommy and daddy to go to the gulag. They better have a gun or the commies will kill mommy

 

[freekforge]

Where's it say artillery pieces aren't allowed for home defense? I've shot 37mm anti tank guns a couple times. I shot several black powder cannons that would put any full auto gun to shame damage wise. Heck you can mail order cannons that can blow through a house. Being an USAF vet doesn't mean you're an expert on the constitution or firearms my dude.

Guys I'm a welder so I'm now an expert in engineering and metallurgy. The way you use metal is wrong and I am right.

 

[mcapo]

Oh...that pesky U.S. Constitution that's gives those darned inalienable rights like freedom of speech, religion, a free press, protection from unreasonable search and seizure and the right to keep and bear arms.

Apply your same thought process to, say, the written word.

How much say do you want the Govt to have in what you choose to read, write or publish? Should you only be allowed to read what you "need" to read?

Publishing companies have made tons of money selling literature that, some would argue, poisons the mind. Should we confiscate and burn?

and, oh, how that free press is SUCH a burden to the govt implementing what is "good for the people". We could be such a more passive society if we could just stop the press from reporting.

We are fortunate to live in a state which provides even more specificity than the US Constitution.

Article I, § 32 of the Indiana Constitution provides that “the people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."

 

[radar8756]

... I want some for my own, but can't justify spending that kind of money.

I also want a tank.

Me Too & a Cannon

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Me Too & a Cannon

…and a Corsair.

 

[Gabriel]

And why is it that banning assault rifles would be a "slippery slope" when banning fully automatic rifles is completely acceptable to gun owners?

Banning automatic rifles was not acceptable and the NFA should be abolished.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I watched this video last night. It provides a nugget I never realized: SBRs and SBSs were loop holes designed to cover for part of the original target of the NFA—banning handguns.

The NFA ought to be tossed into the trash can of history.

 

[Ddillard]

I'll keep this simple. Someone please explain to me why civilians need to be allowed to own rifles that were designed for use in war. And why is it that banning assault rifles would be a "slippery slope" when banning fully automatic rifles is completely acceptable to gun owners? The reality is, we have always drawn lines at which civilians are limited by law with regard to which weapons they may own. Artillery pieces and mortars are also disallowed for home defense. You'd like my opinion? Oh, sure. I believe gun manufacturers and the billions spent to lobby and advertise...to reach people like you and me with alarmist nonsense is largely responsible for the rhetoric against controlling assault weapons. Gun companies have become quite wealthy selling AR platform rifles and other weapons of war. Is it because they are patriots? Ha. Yeah, that's it. They are worried about you defending your home against all those invaders that none of use have yet encountered. If any of my words here could possibly be construed as name-calling, I promise I have not used any such language. I look forward to a thoughtful discussion of this topic and reading the logical and honest posts by members here. If you would like to provide statistics, please include the sources, and it might be best to make the sources something other than "some guy's site on the interweb." Have a great day, fellow gun owners and citizens. I am a USAF veteran who owns a dozen or so firearms.

The fact of the matter is there is a document, the Constitution of these United States. The founders put forth another documents and that was the Bill of Rights. These were a matter of opinion of a set of people who had seen atrocities under an intrusive and unobliging tyranny. With this in mind a standard was to be set forth by stating that there is a right and duty to bear arms. With this in mind, we sometimes read more into what was a simple matter of common sense. If the founders would have felt the necessity to set limitations, they would have stated the same. So, therefore the mere matter is not to be considered in any other manner than to say that in the matter of the time was that of unhindered defense of the right to keep and bear arms. Thus as it was needed and expected to be unhindered to keep and defend the establishment of a Republic.
--"One Man's Opinion!"

 

[Ingomike]

I look forward to a thoughtful discussion of this topic and reading the logical and honest posts by members here.

A discussion need your participation, where is your discussion?

 

[Expat]

So you only want guns that you approve of legal?
how about my 03 Springfield? Weapon of war.
my Garands? Weapons of war.
my M14? FAL? All served extensively as weapons of war.
Sorry but your attitude pisses me off.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So you only want guns that you approve of legal?
how about my 03 Springfield? Weapon of war.
my Garands? Weapons of war.
my M14? FAL? All served extensively as weapons of war.
Sorry but your attitude pisses me off.

I’m jealous. You should share your hoard with those of us, less fortunate. You know…for equity’s sake.

 

[Mgderf]

Because the founders had just won a war where they realized that had the citizens not owned the very same (or better) weapons the British army had, they’d never had won the war for independence.

They knew the armed citizenry was the last check on a government bent on oppressing them.

It’s that simple.

The citizenry should be able to own any weapon any government employee is issued and no weapon denied to the citizenry ought to be issued to any government employee.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms". - Thomas Jefferson

 

[ditcherman]

Sounds like one of those unfortunate military guys who is all "for me but not for thee" because special training or something.

 

[Expat]

I’m jealous. You should share your hoard with those of us, less fortunate. You know…for equity’s sake.

Happily I am anti equity.

 

[DadSmith]

I'll keep this simple. Someone please explain to me why civilians need to be allowed to own rifles that were designed for use in war. And why is it that banning assault rifles would be a "slippery slope" when banning fully automatic rifles is completely acceptable to gun owners? The reality is, we have always drawn lines at which civilians are limited by law with regard to which weapons they may own. Artillery pieces and mortars are also disallowed for home defense. You'd like my opinion? Oh, sure. I believe gun manufacturers and the billions spent to lobby and advertise...to reach people like you and me with alarmist nonsense is largely responsible for the rhetoric against controlling assault weapons. Gun companies have become quite wealthy selling AR platform rifles and other weapons of war. Is it because they are patriots? Ha. Yeah, that's it. They are worried about you defending your home against all those invaders that none of use have yet encountered. If any of my words here could possibly be construed as name-calling, I promise I have not used any such language. I look forward to a thoughtful discussion of this topic and reading the logical and honest posts by members here. If you would like to provide statistics, please include the sources, and it might be best to make the sources something other than "some guy's site on the interweb." Have a great day, fellow gun owners and citizens. I am a USAF veteran who owns a dozen or so firearms.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, son-in-law of John Adams, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788


This is to remind you why we are not supposed to have arms regulated or the ownership infringed upon.

For someone who supposedly served and took an oath to defend such rights. You sir seem to be clueless of that which you took an oath to defend.