stlouiedipalma;714730 wrote:You really need these weapons?

Why shouldn't I have the freedom to own one or more.
I used them to defend my country at the age of 19, I'm trained and skilled with them, I know and understand the weapons power and I have been shot with one ..... Have I not earned the right to own such a weapon.

Why should my freedom of ownership be less because of unlawful individuals.... ?

LJ;714739 wrote:The law expired because a republican congress and president let it. You asked when democrats had banned guns, I showed you.

Also, instead of asking if I need these weapons (which why wouldnt I?) Why dont you tell me what makes them so dangerous?

I'm not going to fall into that "guns don't kill" trap you are setting.

Why don't you tell me what makes them so necessary?

Let me clarify that last post. When I ask what makes them so necessary, I refer to assault weapons.

stlouiedipalma;714748 wrote:I'm not going to fall into that "guns don't kill" trap you are setting.

Why don't you tell me what makes them so necessary?

They are no more dangerous than any other gun. Tell me why I dont...

stlouiedipalma;714757 wrote:Let me clarify that last post. When I ask what makes them so necessary, I refer to assault weapons.

I repeat:

Why shouldn't I have the freedom to own one or more.
I used them to defend my country at the age of 19, I'm trained and skilled with them, I know and understand the weapons power and I have been shot with one ..... Have I not earned the right to own such a weapon.

Why should my freedom of ownership be less because of unlawful individuals.... ?

And I wasnt setting a trap. I wanted yiu to tell me what about the physical features of those guns that function the same makes them more dangerous

A .38 Special will kill you just as easily as a TEC-9, if that's what you're getting at. I fully understand the dangerous nature of all weapons, not just firearms. I just don't understand what use I would have to own an AK-47 or a TEC-9 or an Uzi. Are there any game which can legally be hunted in Ohio using these weapons? Are these weapons more accurate? Are they better at the range than a conventional rifle?

stlouiedipalma;714791 wrote:A .38 Special will kill you just as easily as a TEC-9, if that's what you're getting at. I fully understand the dangerous nature of all weapons, not just firearms. I just don't understand what use I would have to own an AK-47 or a TEC-9 or an Uzi. Are there any game which can legally be hunted in Ohio using these weapons? Are these weapons more accurate? Are they better at the range than a conventional rifle?

I repeat:

Why shouldn't I have the freedom to own one or more.
I used them to defend my country at the age of 19, I'm trained and skilled with them, I know and understand the weapons power and I have been shot with one ..... Have I not earned the right to own such a weapon.

Why should my freedom of ownership be less because of unlawful individuals.... ?

stlouiedipalma;714791 wrote:A .38 Special will kill you just as easily as a TEC-9, if that's what you're getting at. I fully understand the dangerous nature of all weapons, not just firearms. I just don't understand what use I would have to own an AK-47 or a TEC-9 or an Uzi. Are there any game which can legally be hunted in Ohio using these weapons? Are these weapons more accurate? Are they better at the range than a conventional rifle?

Should people not be allowed to buy sports cars that go well over the speed limit? I don't understand why I would have to own a Ferrari or Bugatti. Are there any public roads I can drive on at full speed?

stlouiedipalma;714791 wrote:A .38 Special will kill you just as easily as a TEC-9, if that's what you're getting at. I fully understand the dangerous nature of all weapons, not just firearms. I just don't understand what use I would have to own an AK-47 or a TEC-9 or an Uzi. Are there any game which can legally be hunted in Ohio using these weapons? Are these weapons more accurate? Are they better at the range than a conventional rifle?

You fail to understand the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment and the right to bare arms. It has little to do with the right to hunt game or shoot at targets. The framers intent was if the new form of government they were creating ever evolved into one like the one they just threw off with armed rebellion, the people would bare the tools to the same thing.

stlouiedipalma;714730 wrote:You really need these weapons?

The law expired and it hasn't been brought back, so I would guess that I can still buy one of these.

You NEED food, water and shelter. Everything else is wants. You don't need your cell phone, cable TV, car, microwave, shower, toilet, carpet, air conditioning, blue jeans, a basketball, sun glasses, electricity, pens and pencils, ball cap, computer, iPad, beer, ice cream, movie theaters, DVDs, any electronics, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc .............

It isn't about need. It's about some politician deciding my rights should be whatever he/she decides instead of what the constitution states.

Serious question for you or any liberal pro gun control individual. If I want a fully automatic Thompson sub machine gun why should I not be allowed to get one? If I want a 30mm automatic anti aircraft gun why should I not be allowed to get one? If I want a sawed off 10" barrel shotgun why should I not be allowed to get one?

stlouiedipalma;714730 wrote:You really need these weapons?

Of course not. Technically, I don't even need a shotgun, but don't think I don't feel safer with my 12-gauge than I would with a .38 Special (I have more margin for error with the spray).

This isn't an issue of need.

LJ;714739 wrote:Also, instead of asking if I need these weapons (which why wouldnt I?) Why dont you tell me what makes them so dangerous?

I'm still not sure what "they" is referring to, really. Which guns are we talking about?

stlouiedipalma;714748 wrote:Why don't you tell me what makes them so necessary?

Guns in general, or specific kinds of guns?

Technically, no gun is "necessary," inherently. Necessity is determined by need. If I'm never threatened, I never need a gun. If I, or my family, IS threatened, then I may need one to protect my/their safety. However, it's difficult to determine "need" before that circumstance takes place.

dwccrew;714878 wrote:Should people not be allowed to buy sports cars that go well over the speed limit? I don't understand why I would have to own a Ferrari or Bugatti. Are there any public roads I can drive on at full speed?

Well ... yes ... but are there public roads you can legally drive on at full speet? That's a different question.

My old CFO had a Maserati. He used to FLY down roads if it was really late or really early, and nobody was on the roads. Not safe, of course, and not his right, but he was willing to accept the consequences (and did on numerous occasions).

In any case, this discussion isn't really a matter of necessity.

O-Trap;714971 wrote:I'm still not sure what "they" is referring to, really. Which guns are we talking about?


.

"assualt weapons"

^ LOL!

O-Trap;713290 wrote:No amount of gun restriction will prevent this, so dwcrew's option is no more or less viable as a result of this fact.

Except registering guns like we register cars. (which is controlled at the state level, is that what you mean dwccrew?)

Glory Days;715000 wrote:Except registering guns like we register cars. (which is controlled at the state level, is that what you mean dwccrew?)

Why should we have to register guns?

I think you should register your guns if you have no proof that you purchased them legally.

This is tantamount to prosecute people that have purchased weapons through illegal means.

The sooner we can get to a baseline and enforce the rules we already have. the sooner we can move away from this "gun conrol debate".

If you commit a crime with an illegal weopon. I think that you should do MANATORY time.

Thread Bomber;715055 wrote:I think you should register your guns if you have no proof that you purchased them legally.

This is tantamount to prosecute people that have purchased weapons through illegal means.

The sooner we can get to a baseline and enforce the rules we already have. the sooner we can move away from this "gun conrol debate".

If you commit a crime with an illegal weopon. I think that you should do MANATORY time.

You have to do mandatory time if you commit a crime with any gun.

LJ;715062 wrote:You have to do mandatory time if you commit a crime with any gun.

I guess I should have stated what I meant better.

I meant if you commit a crime with a firearm that is illegally possessed or obtained you should do MORE mandatory crime. The difference being that if you commit a crime with an illegal weapon, you broke the law before you broke the law.

People that own weapons legally RARELY commit crimes with them. They have proven that by purchasing the gun legally, they are more inclined to follow the law as to their use,

Thread Bomber;715055 wrote:I think you should register your guns if you have no proof that you purchased them legally.

This is tantamount to prosecute people that have purchased weapons through illegal means.

The sooner we can get to a baseline and enforce the rules we already have. the sooner we can move away from this "gun conrol debate".

If you commit a crime with an illegal weopon. I think that you should do MANATORY time.

Why stop at guns? Why not register everything in your life with the fedgov?

The baseline should be the second amendment. It is my right and should not be infringed in anyway.

Glory Days;715000 wrote:Except registering guns like we register cars. (which is controlled at the state level, is that what you mean dwccrew?)

This wouldn't really work, either. Guns being sold out of the back of pickup trucks are quite possibly either:
(a) Stolen, or
(b) Imported illegally

Guns are more easily hidden in a residence or on a person. Thus, the fact that you possess an unregistered gun is multiply easier to hide than the fact that you drive an unregistered vehicle.

Where do people get the idea that adding additional burdens to those who aren't criminals will solve the crime problem?

tsst_fballfan;715083 wrote:

Why stop at guns? Why not register everything in your life with the fedgov?

Are you implying the "slippery slope?" The federal and state government collect all kinds of information. I would hope you a being facetious. If it is legal, i have no problem with the government knowing you own firearms.

Hell, they already know you are purchasing a weapon because you have to go through them in the form of a background check to make a legal purchase.

The baseline should be the second amendment. It is my right and should not be infringed in anyway

Text of Amendment:
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

How is registering a weapon infringing on your 2ND amendment rights? They aren't saying that you cant have it (within certain criteria)

Now, if you are making a right to privacy argument, I might tent to agree with you a little more a s this is not expressly mentioned in the Constitution. I do not wish to open up that can of worms for fear of another abortion debate.

If you own it legally and the Government does not consider it public information, You should not have a problem with it.

Thread Bomber;715160 wrote:Hell, they already know you are purchasing a weapon because you have to go through them in the form of a background check to make a legal purchase.

Wouldn't "registering" it, then, be redundant?

queencitybuckeye;715143 wrote:Where do people get the idea that adding additional burdens to those who aren't criminals will solve the crime problem?

To put it simply, If you are willing to go through the extra burden, you have proved on some level that your intent is to own the legally and by logical extention intend on following the law as to it's legal use.