Join Our Green Bay Packers Interactive Community!

We have been providing fans with the best source of Packers information since 2006!
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
7 Pages123>»
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Zero2Cool  
#1 Posted : Monday, January 7, 2013 2:36:11 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,911
Applause Received: 2,117

Admittedly, I’m not that well versed with guns, but I do know that assault rifles serve one primary purpose, … to kill… many, quickly and I don’t feel there is any place for them in our civilian hands. I’ve read quite a few comments on news sites, forums and Facebook and it’s astonishing how foolish many of the pro-gun people are. I’m all for the 2nd amendment and from (my interpretation) of it. Meaning, you hold arms for protection. A shotgun, handgun… not an assault rifle that fires off 30 shots a second or whatever insane spray they have.

A few of the asinine comments I’ve seen that have rubbed me wrong …


Quote:
“Why doesn’t a resident killing a would be robber in a gun battle make national news?”

People posing these kind of questions who bear arms, … scare me! Does a robber killing a resident make national news? Not without a racial undertone it doesn’t. Another failure to understand big picture.



Quote:
“Obama’s family gets protected 24/7 by men with guns and feels you don’t need guns to protect your family.“

This was stated in the context that Obama is saying his family is more important. Wrong. The family of the President of the United States is recognized world-wide and as the most powerful man in the world means consequently his family is at risk. It’s no way shape or form saying one family is more important than the other.



Quote:
“We don’t blame cars for drunk drivers. Why blame guns for violent people?”

This is another one that irritates me because of how ignorant it is. Getting into a vehicle intoxicated is adding RISK to killing someone. Entering a school, church, movie theater, mall or anywhere heavily populated with people with assault rifles and grenades is doing so with the INTENT to kill MANY. How is this difficult to understand?



Quote:
“56 children 14 and under died from fatal gun accidents compared to 86 died in bathtubs”

All I have to say about this, and anyone with an IQ > 35 will understand is this … how many children play with guns everyday compared to how many children take a bath every day? Context, it’s a statistics end game.



Quote:
“Let us ban knives because 22 children were stabbed in China”

I find this interesting because those stating it always fail to acknowledge that all 22 children survived. Visit your child in the hospital or attend their funeral? Think about it.




I have little to no issue with home protection gun ownership, recreational hunting… I just don’t feel there’s a realistic need for you, me, or our neighbors to possess assault rifles.
UserPostedImage
Sponsor
Offline Pack93z  
#2 Posted : Monday, January 7, 2013 2:39:47 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 390
Applause Received: 1,057

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post

I have little to no issue with home protection gun ownership, recreational hunting… I just don’t feel there’s a realistic need for you, me, or our neighbors to possess assault rifles.


This I agree with.. the classification of an assault rifle/weapon needs clear definition however.

Additionally, I think there should be tiers of weapons and training/licensing needed to possess the different classes/tiers of weapons.

The right to own a gun is protected by the amendments of this country, but that doesn't mean it should be completely unregulated.
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline 4PackGirl  
#3 Posted : Monday, January 7, 2013 2:48:58 PM(UTC)
4PackGirl

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 12/17/2006(UTC)
Location: illinois

Applause Given2: 159
Applause Received: 124

i seriously couldn't agree more, kevin.

i wish more people could feel empathy for others more often.

if having a gun in your nightstand somehow gives you a higher sense of security, i guess that works for some.
but i know that unless my family was in harms way, i could NEVER EVER shoot another human being & if you have a gun in your home for protection, you have to be fully prepared to use that gun.

violence has become far too big of a presence in our lives. i'm one of few parents who will NOT allow their kids to play call of duty. most of the boys friends have been playing them since they were 8!!! that to me is lazy parenting & just plain ignorant.

UserPostedImage
Offline Porforis  
#4 Posted : Monday, January 7, 2013 2:56:25 PM(UTC)
Porforis

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 8/22/2009(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Applause Given: 169
Applause Received: 333

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
Admittedly, I’m not that well versed with guns, but I do know that assault rifles serve one primary purpose, … to kill… many, quickly and I don’t feel there is any place for them in our civilian hands. I’ve read quite a few comments on news sites, forums and Facebook and it’s astonishing how foolish many of the pro-gun people are. I’m all for the 2nd amendment and from (my interpretation) of it. Meaning, you hold arms for protection. A shotgun, handgun… not an assault rifle that fires off 30 shots a second or whatever insane spray they have.


Even if we take your example as an exaggeration to make a point (very few weapons, and as far as I'm aware, no legal weapons fire half that quickly), I firmly believe that at least 75% of Americans (including many gun owners) believe that banning the sale of weapons like that is acceptable.

Like many other political issues these days (spending, taxation), I think the problem arises when nobody is willing to firmly define terms and explain what is and is not acceptable. People will point fingers at problems and bad things and propose solutions, but they don't define what IS acceptable and what IS a reasonable balance of liberties and safety. Obviously, there's people on extremes of the political spectrums that won't be happy no matter what, but for most people closer to the middle, I do believe there's room for agreement and compromise with enough rational and effective communication.

This is the legislation many politicians want to re-enact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...eral_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Quote:

In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip

Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more

A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip

Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.


While there are certainly many things in here I think most of us can agree should be banned, why is there other crap in there? Why are we banning firearms by name rather than using simple, measurable terms to determine what should and should not be legal? Why can't we say that any semi-automatic weapon capable of firing over x rounds per minute is illegal, any magazine size over x is illegal? Why is everybody saying X, Y, and Z need to be banned without firmly defining where the trail of banning should end?

Personally, I don't see the need to own a firearm. Hell, the day I moved into my new home, I heard a series of pops from a parking lot two blocks north of me and there were cop cars out there for about 6 hours afterwards. Nobody got killed but it was apparent there were shots fired. But still, I don't think I'm responsible enough to own a firearm with my history of depression and much earlier in life, suicide attempts. That being said, I understand why many people want to own firearms to protect their families in the case of home invasions and the like.

And I know that if I did have a handgun, I would want a semi-auto handgun. If I honestly need to shoot someone, I'd absolutely love to be able to simply incapacitate someone as the thought of killing ANYBODY sickens me, but if someone is in my house and is threatening myself and my wife I am not going to take the chance. If I lived out in the country, I could see myself having a rifle of some sort and if it was in an area known for druggies raiding houses, maybe something semi-auto. I could never see myself with a semi-auto shotgun though.
UserPostedImage
Offline Cheesey  
#5 Posted : Monday, January 7, 2013 5:12:32 PM(UTC)
Cheesey

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 7/28/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 177
Applause Received: 396

People are murdered EVERY DAY in America with things other then guns. Should we outlaw anything that has been used to murder someone?

You see, it ALL boils down to the fact that you have to make the punishment of using a gun or anything to kill someone as your "target". Going after guns will not lower violent crime.
The agenda of those in power is to highlight ANY crime committed with a gun, as a "reason" to take away guns.
And what exactly is an "assualt weapon?" I have heard the term, but it seems most people have no idea what that means.
If you mean "automatic weapons", then i can see why they are not neccesary to be owned by the general public.
If you mean semi automatic, then i disagree.
An AR-15 is no more dangerous then a 30-06 rifle, but it LOOKS "meaner".
It's the BAD PEOPLE that we have to target if what your real desire is to stop mass murders like we have seen.
A person beaten to death with a baseball bat is just as dead as someone shot to death.

And as i have said over and over, and it's still true, is if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.
They are, and always will be out there. Just because you don't SEE them doesn't mean they arn't there.
As i have stated before, countries that have outlawed guns have had increased gun violence. Why? Because criminals LOVE helpless victims.
I'm not saying everyone should own a gun. If you don't want one, don't get one.
I would shoot an intruder if it meant protecting my loved ones. Does that make me evil? I would HATE to have to do it, but do you think a criminal would have any problem with attacking me, or raping my wife while i'm forced to watch?
Check out the number of people that have saved thier own lives and the lives of their loved ones, alot of times without even having to fire a shot, just because they had a gun and showed it to the intruder.
It happens all the time in this country, but as it flies against the scare tactics the liberal media wants, it's usually not reported on.
UserPostedImage
Offline Formo  
#6 Posted : Tuesday, January 8, 2013 9:54:14 AM(UTC)
Formo

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 215
Applause Received: 152

The problem lies in the government's/media's definition of 'assault weapons'. And the continued ignorance of what a semi-automatic and a full automatic weapon is.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
thanks Post received 1 applause.
Cheesey on 1/8/2013(UTC)
Offline Zero2Cool  
#7 Posted : Tuesday, January 8, 2013 9:58:13 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,911
Applause Received: 2,117

Originally Posted by: Formo Go to Quoted Post
The problem lies in the government's/media's definition of 'assault weapons'. And the continued ignorance of what a semi-automatic and a full automatic weapon is.


Legit inquiry ... can you explain the difference?
UserPostedImage
Offline Formo  
#8 Posted : Tuesday, January 8, 2013 10:04:17 AM(UTC)
Formo

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 215
Applause Received: 152

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
Legit inquiry ... can you explain the difference?


Between semi-autos and full-autos?

Semi-autos, regardless if the trigger is pulled or held, one round is fired. Full-autos, if you hold the trigger, it will continue firing rounds.

As far as the definition of an 'assault weapon', basically, the government/media considers any weapon that LOOKS scary/militaristic as an 'assault weapon'.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Offline Zero2Cool  
#9 Posted : Tuesday, January 8, 2013 10:07:49 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,911
Applause Received: 2,117

Originally Posted by: Formo Go to Quoted Post
Between semi-autos and full-autos?

Semi-autos, regardless if the trigger is pulled or held, one round is fired. Full-autos, if you hold the trigger, it will continue firing rounds.

As far as the definition of an 'assault weapon', basically, the government/media considers any weapon that LOOKS scary/militaristic as an 'assault weapon'.


When I say I don't feel we civilians need to possess any assault rifles, I was speaking more about the weapons that you pull the trigger and 30 shots ring out in seconds.

I'd say semi-auto is fine, but full-auto, I disagree with that we NEED to have them. I feel the former is more adherent to the 2nd amendment than the latter.
UserPostedImage
Offline Pack93z  
#10 Posted : Tuesday, January 8, 2013 10:27:15 AM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 390
Applause Received: 1,057

There will be the argument, that with some work, tools and knowledge.. one can take a semi auto and convert it to fire more than one round per pull.

Here is my problem with both the semi and fully automatic weapons (and yes I have fired one a couple different times) is neither is very accurate and to be honest.. past the first couple rounds.. you are not taking the time to aim and fire between the adrenaline and recoil. So in my opinion, they don't make very good sport guns because of this.

I agree we in the public sector do not need a fully automatic weapon at all.. and probably not a semi either. But I guess I would make the regulations on them much stiffer to obtain the ability to own them at the very least.

And no.. just like the drug trade, you are not going to stop the criminals from obtaining what they want as the US regulations are always going to differ from the worlds. But lessening the opportunity for the types of "killer" that commit these spree killings.. such regulations as a tier program will limit the probably some.

We live not in bubbles and we are a "free" society... you are not going to stop it all.. even in a full out removal of guns. Personally, if those in power would just define in black and white what is allowable and not by the law abiding public within reason, it is about as good as the issue is going to get without changing the "free" society concept more than we already have.
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 1 applause.
Porforis on 1/8/2013(UTC)
Offline Formo  
#11 Posted : Tuesday, January 8, 2013 10:43:50 AM(UTC)
Formo

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 215
Applause Received: 152

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
When I say I don't feel we civilians need to possess any assault rifles, I was speaking more about the weapons that you pull the trigger and 30 shots ring out in seconds.


Fair enough. There's really no argument there.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Offline Cheesey  
#12 Posted : Tuesday, January 8, 2013 5:03:30 PM(UTC)
Cheesey

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 7/28/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 177
Applause Received: 396

I personally know alot of hunters that use semi automatic rifles when they hunt. They are easier to use, as you can shoot and not have to do anything to get another round into the barrel.
I myself use a lever action rifle, and can shoot almost as fast as a semi auto, as i have been using it for over 30 years.
It becomes a natural movement to reload when you practice with it.

Automatic weapons are already illegal, so you don't need any new laws. If someone is already breaking laws that are there now, what makes anyone think that criminals will suddenly follow NEW laws?
Answer: They won't. That's why they are bad people. They don't care about ANY laws.
Stricter enforcement and harsher penalties is what is needed to stop bad people. Not new laws that have no more "teeth" then the current ones.
Drunk driving is illegal, but doesn't stop the drunks. Harsher penalties if you are caught drunk driving might stop some people. Some though, as you already know, will do it anyway. You see people caught for 6 and 7 or more times drunk driving. Some just don't care and the only way is to incarcerate them, same as they should do for those using guns to commit crimes.
UserPostedImage
Offline Pack93z  
#13 Posted : Tuesday, January 8, 2013 5:10:02 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 390
Applause Received: 1,057

Originally Posted by: Cheesey Go to Quoted Post

Automatic weapons are already illegal, so you don't need any new laws.


Actually with the lapse of the assault weapon ban... they are legal as of now.

I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline DakotaT  
#14 Posted : Tuesday, January 8, 2013 5:10:58 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 658
Applause Received: 1,347

Originally Posted by: Cheesey Go to Quoted Post
I personally know alot of hunters that use semi automatic rifles when they hunt. They are easier to use, as you can shoot and not have to do anything to get another round into the barrel.
I myself use a lever action rifle, and can shoot almost as fast as a semi auto, as i have been using it for over 30 years.
It becomes a natural movement to reload when you practice with it.

Automatic weapons are already illegal, so you don't need any new laws. If someone is already breaking laws that are there now, what makes anyone think that criminals will suddenly follow NEW laws?
Answer: They won't. That's why they are bad people. They don't care about ANY laws.
Stricter enforcement and harsher penalties is what is needed to stop bad people. Not new laws that have no more "teeth" then the current ones.
Drunk driving is illegal, but doesn't stop the drunks. Harsher penalties if you are caught drunk driving might stop some people. Some though, as you already know, will do it anyway. You see people caught for 6 and 7 or more times drunk driving. Some just don't care and the only way is to incarcerate them, same as they should do for those using guns to commit crimes.


Yeah Cheesey, but those semi-auto's used for deer rifles only hold 4 rounds, so you get four shots. That's not the type of rifle that is going to be made illegal. And please quit using those stupid apples to oranges comparisons on your argument. All it does is waters down your argument, because they have nothing to do with the topic at hand. A 4 round clip on a deer rifle is plenty - ban anything holding more than that. We will all survive just fine.

UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 1 applause.
yooperfan on 1/9/2013(UTC)
Offline Dulak  
#15 Posted : Wednesday, January 9, 2013 4:27:04 AM(UTC)
Dulak

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 1/19/2009(UTC)
Location: London, UK (from kenosha)

Applause Given: 154
Applause Received: 100

Ive commented on thid forum in the past about gun control and talked to others about it also.

The big issue is this - I feel like I'd like a gun and feel Id be sane to only use it when needed (to get rid of unwanted trash (j/k)) - but the problem is there are people out there that you cant trust with such a weapon - actually quite a bit.

So Id rather have laws that severely limit the amount of guns in the US then have them become so rampant that kids in school need metal detectors because they never know whom might bring one. Let alone outside people going to schools and shooting people.

The whole argument about people kill people and guns dont ... sure but crazy, mad, upset, irrational, depressed, curious, people do it also and guns make it alot easier.

me and my wife are thinking about moving back to the states and to be honest all the deaths and even seeing signs around at the bars in wisconsin about no concealed carry etc worries me. Heck my wife grew up in northern ireland and is really opposed to guns.

I honestly wonder how many people (children, adults, parents, friends etc) must die to shootings before change takes effect.

After living in london for the past 5 years I really feel the states should adapt much more control - perhaps not as strict as the UK but much more then there is ...

(not that the UK is perfect but some things are IMO better)
thanks Post received 1 applause.
flep on 1/9/2013(UTC)
 
Users browsing this topic
Guest (3)
7 Pages123>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2014, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.877 seconds.

Notification

Icon
Error

Tweeter

Recent Topics
22m / Around The NFL / wpr

25m / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

34m / Random Babble / Smokey

35m / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

3h / Random Babble / Smokey

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / texaspackerbacker

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / QCHuskerFan

6h / Fantasy Sports Talk / Smokey

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / texaspackerbacker

9h / Fantasy Sports Talk / Zero2Cool

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DoddPower

17h / Fantasy Sports Talk / Smokey

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf


Copyright © 2006-2014 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.