.50 cals are being discussed. They're guns aren't they?:p

Seriously, the last thing we need are people running around with these types of guns. S*** is bound to happen either way, but it would be worse off with what you're proposing. Criminals don't have restrictions imposed on guns as of now. Imagine if we gave them the right to purchase AR-15s (which come with semi auto and auto firing modes).

A .22 pistol or a pump-action shotgun will work for home defense. Hunting rifles wouldn't be bad either. Anything else is just overkill. Magnums ought to be illegal, given how dangerous they are (if a .454 bullet misses you, the shockwave it sends out is so powerful that it will still break down tissue in your muscles).

EDIT: Meant a .454 bullet, not a .44.

I'm not "anti", because anti means activist. I don't put any effort into taking guns or bibles away. However if guns and bibles went away I wouldn't shed any tears. Religion is just Santa Clause for adults. The government can't watch us all 24/7 so they want the masses to think there is an invisible man watching us. Oh, and he needs money, he made the earth in 8 days but he needs money put in the pot. Pleease. I mean come on, there is an invisible man in the sky getting angry when I masterbate? ha, who writes that stuff.

I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. I don't know, that is all anyone can honestly say with certainty. If god is as all knowing as people say he sure lets a lot of total maniacal scumbags run his religion down here. I mean look at the current pope, an ex Hitler youth. Why does god's sales rep on earth need a bulletproof car, I mean that shows no faith there.

Dude! Get a girl, they are a lot more fun than spanking your monkey...or your forefather as you see it...:D

He needs to visit East LA, detroit, South Chigago, St Louis, etc. Gaza is probably safer than these places.

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/3...ckytankac3.jpg

I want one of these!:up:

But the Assault Weapons Ban... doesn't ban semi-auto AKs. It just bans semi-auto AKs with certain external features. As long as cosmetically they comply to certain silly requirements, the internals can be the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban

I'm a big fan of the 2nd amendment. But not a big fan of any weapon that would make my vest and torso look like swiss cheese.

With respect to all, I as a law-abiding citizen want to have any type of firearm I desire. The real topic of all this talk is freedom of choice--or lack of it. When you get into an area where the goverment chooses for you than you have in effect lost that freedom.

It seems here that most of you support firearm ownership but some of you want exceptions as to what type should be allowed. This IMO is a critical error. Back when the Bill of Rights was adopted the smooth-bore musket was the weapon of it's time. There was never a restriction that allowed only some to have bows and arrows instead.

I understand your position and respect that. However, for an example lets use an AR-15. One with a 30 round magazine. the 5.56 or .223 is not a great round when hunting deer. Terrible for bird and laughable against bear. So hunting is not it's calling in life.

The 5.56 or .223 is pretty good against human targets. Low recoil lets you put multiple rounds on target accurately enough in quick time. It penetrates body armor very well.

The problem is. I have encountered quite a few citizens armed with these military style weapons. None of which were the law abidding types. Hard to sit at the movies with one strapped on your back. It's not a good choice for home protection unless you live by yourself.

I'm all for concealed carry. I firmly believe that a lot of street crime would go down. But you cannot carry an "assault" rifle concealed.

Thanks for allowing me to share.

One of my guns is an AR-15 made by colt. It has a 20 inch barrel and I use a 20 round mag instead of a 30. It is not a "hunting rifle" as you say although it can be used against small varmits. Excellent rifle out to 300 yards. As I own a small farm it also can be used as a self-defence weapon. I just choose to have it as I like the look and feel of it.

I don't hunt anymore, haven't in over 20 years but I enjoy target shooting up to 500 yards. This whole gun control thing really has nothing to do with hunting anyway as some may think.

It is about protection from those who would harm you or your family. Many have died from the hands of thugs who either had a gun or simply out numbered them. You may not need a AR-15 to protect yourself but I want the choice to have one.

It is most important to never allow yourself to loose the ability to choose, that freedom of choice we do have. Once lost you will never ever get it back.

7mm magnum and 300 magnum are VERY popular hunting rifle calibers. Or are you only referring to handguns here?

Hm. The firearm debate allways reminds me of the drug discussion. Ppl claim the right to own and use it for real (home defense, sports, hunting) or hypothetical reasons (2d. amandment, ideological reasons, what I do and own is to me and nobody else) vs. the public good and percieved common sense. Probably a neverending debate as both sides have valid arguments.

Nevertheless, I personally got myself on the anti side. Simply because I had to answer myself the following question.....what are guns ultimately made for?

That is to kill or injure. Nothing else. No other tool possess that quality. That does not mean there are no needs to use it. But for me that means I simply will have to avoid these needs.

Just making the point that you don't need anything too fancy to get the job done. Basic guns are just as lethal as advanced guns.

From the point of view of the US Constitution... one has to understand the 2nd amendament is made to protect the citizens against the government. Or to defend against a foreign ivader. Utopic? Maybe... or maybe not. But thats its purpose. So its not the deer thats the problem, but rather the "alien from outer space". Texas revolution anyone?

For more of the same but different civilization one can look at Switzerland. Yes sir they're paid to keep their ASSAULT WEAPON at home. full auto that is. Do they use them for crimes? Hardly.

But then again, facts are "assault weapons" are hardly used for crimes in the US either. They just look bad in the press. Its harder to say "no one should be allowed to own a handgun" with a straight face, you see.

If you knew anything about the law you would know that you can own fully automatic weapons via the proper federal licensing. Shooting them at approved ranges is also perfectly legal. It requires a lot of background checks, and a lot of money, but over a quarter-million fully functioning machine guns are currently owned in the United States today.

But that's why the 2nd Amendment is there in the first place. The Revolution started when the Governor of Massachussetts sent troops to 'collect' the cannons in a privately held armory. How 'real' do you want us to get?