You mean this one?

Seems like a general rant against the 2A using an example that nothing to do with the subject at hand to me.

The bottom line here is just because some people might abuse a right, that is not a justification for denying that right to others.

You still did answer my question. What does home invaders have to do with my original post? Did I state we should deny any rights? Was I justifying anything other than when the coin is flipped it looks different from that side?

About as much as your example has to do with the thread topic of arming adults. Good enough answer?

You called it "entirely out of control" That implies that you favor control and would likely support efforts to deny people their civil rights.

The problem is you're comparing the halves of two different coins. Giving an adult the means to defend themselves vs an underage person illegally possessing something. Apples and oranges my friend.

Lets rewind so AVG can understand what he was really saying.
You open with sarcasm. So what your meaning is the exact opposite of what your saying. So your "did i say that?" defense is a load of crap.


What your really saying, "Lets exacerbate the problem as i see it!"


What your really saying, "Bad stuff!"

So now your chastising.


More chastisement.


Here is where your sarcasm stopped and you start talking directly.

Your lead in to what has you emotionally charged.

Your reason for switching stance on the 2nd amendment.


About the only thing that wasn't offensive, because it's something everyone can be grateful for.

This, may as well have been a personal insult. Like i said, I've seen plenty of violence growing up. Much less cheering for gun ownership, right to self defense and the 2A ? Yeah right. I experienced violence directly against my own life growing up. So yeah, I took that as a personal insult since i'm probably someone you catagorize as "go guns".


When you use sarcasm, what you say, and what you mean are two different things.

-The answer will have to do.

-I am in favor of some form of control. Support a control is not supporting efforts tot deny a civil right. Do we really need fully auto rifles with magazines that hold 50 rounds? In my mind, unless you are defending yourself in a wartime situation, a fully auto capable of holding 50 rounds is overkill for "home defense." The word "control" is simply over defined. The good upstanding people my have their guns if they desire. It is their civil right. There just won't be any that hold 50 rounds capable of mowing down the entire lot of mall patrons. So, everyone can get a gun. Just not one particular kind of gun. Were then has a civil right been denied?

-Apples and oranges? But, wait, the responsible adults ready to take on accountability for their weapons is forming up to be a myth. The kids are still getting the weapons from the parents lot of firearms as you have assumed since my first post in this thread. The apples have become the enablers for the oranges. :03:

You not a a person who is "go guns." You are a person who is "go Bill of Rights and Constitution." You do not beat the bush about either. Guns just happen to be the subject matter. Your are passionate about the Constitution and Bill of Rights as evident in your sig and postings. Admirable certainly. However, do not allow it to trump what others think or believe on the subject. We are entitled to our opinions. Only my wife is allowed to give me my opinion. :shifty:

Just so you know, getting fully auto guns is extremely hard to do. You have to go through ATF to get finger printed, photo taken, etc etc. They're called Class 3 weapons, and nobody uses those as self defense weapons that I am aware of.

You keep bouncing between subjects. This thread is about SHOTGUNS. Your example of why you are against it included a link to a story about REVOLVERS. Now you're defending your position by talking about supposed evils of MACHINEGUNS?

One type of gun? In this thread alone you have objected to four types of guns by my count.

They call it the Bill of RIGHTS, not the Bill of NEEDS Brother. If you don't like it then try and repeal the second Amendment. To do anything less is both dishonest and weakens the rest of the BoR.

I have not applied for such a weapon. But these weapons do find their way on the streets. But I'm entire agreement concerning parents that allow guns to lay around for kids to have at if needed. I'm kind of in favor of having the parent arrested if the weapon used by the kid is registered to the kids parent. These days home owners are arrested if a under age kid drinks at their home. Why not translate this thought to weapons?

It should also be noted that the current semi-auto ban proposal in Congress would be more restrictive than the full auto ban.

Ha! Fair enough on that one. :haha:

Feinstien's bill that will most assuridly be introduced as an amendment to the current democratic package? yeah that will pretty much gut, and neuter the second amendment without ever having to go through the political circus of repealing it like they want to.

Are semi-auto or fully auto necessary?

I'm not bouncing around on anything. You are apparently believing all weapons are going away and your rights are denied. It is not true. Certain weapons and clips will be denied. I do not need to defend a position. I defend the idea that some types of guns are not necessary. It would seem you call it the bill of needs. The Bill of Rights states everyone is entitled to a fully auto with a 50 round clip? The 2A said you can bear arms. And you may do so. Just not with a particular type of arm. Therefore, it looks like a bill of needs for you. Who said anything about repealing the 2A? You bring that up. I brought up some weapons are just not necessary on the market place nor in the hands of "responsible adults."

Well AVG, most firearms nowdays are semi auto. If they banned Semi auto weapons, then we're left with
- revolvers
- break or pump action shotguns
- bolt action rifles.

Limiting firearm selection to just that, does three things.
1. It completely redefines the second amendment. All of the above are pure sporting arms. Nowhere in the second amendment is sporting or hunting defined. Those of the progressive political persuassion have been wanting to redefine 2A for awhile. The idea of what it's really there for i think frightens them.

2. Puts firearm technology back to the early 20th century. As an aside, I think the majority of the "accessories" you see our troops using on their M-4's was developed in the civilian sector. I don't think it's a far stretch to say that had the 94 weapons ban not expired, our troops today, would have been using 1990's technology in afganistan, Iraq, and elsewhere on their small arms.

3. Would outlaw im guessing 3/4's of existing firearms. Talk about a "gun grab".