An experiment: Please define these "gun" terms

[Donny417]

Following the rules of OP exactly, I have not looked at any other posts, and I am responding immediately after reading the original post.

Gun show loophole - The rather shady (and almost definitely not done by lawful gun vendors) practice of using the lack of legislation on gun shows to allow individuals to obtain a gun without a 5 day background check. HOWEVER, no one ever says that they don't do a background check, just that there is no 5 day period. As far as I know, that may make this a non-issue, or this has already been taken care of and is no longer an extant practice at all.

Assault weapon - Basically anything semi- or automatic.

I will now read all the other posts and see how silly I probably am.

Excellent post! I think that was exactly what the OP had in mind

 

[Donny417]

I served in the National Guard, fired the M16A2, qualified expert, enjoyed some hand grenades, M203 Grenade launcher, M60, etc. I was also in Field Artillery. It was all a blast. It was enjoyable. I love to shoot guns, but I would have to say that I don't need to own any of them to reinforce my freedom. Don't care if they ban the AR15, The "AK" or any of the other ones. They aren't useful to criminals or anyone else. These people use handguns. If they don't ban the AR15, I might own one someday. If you want to say that you don't want these bans because you enjoy them, that's fair enough. If you want to say that you need these guns to protect yourself, you are delusional. A .22 caliber handgun is great protection from intruders. I don't even have that. I have a Louisville Slugger and a cell phone. I'm not scared.

Good post, and thanks for your service.

I'm simply saying it doesn't matter why I wish to maintain my right to bear arms; like I said, it's my right. I just want to keep it that way, likes it's been since 1776.

And on a personal note; yes, I simply enjoy shooting. My 9mm is all the protection I need.

 

[ewurm]

Good post, and thanks for your service.

I'm simply saying it doesn't matter why I wish to maintain my right to bear arms; like I said, it's my right. I just want to keep it that way, likes it's been since 1776.

And on a personal note; yes, I simply enjoy shooting. My 9mm is all the protection I need.

You may feel protected by your 9mm, I feel protected with my door unlocked and a phone. I love guns as much as the next guy, but I don't see where the "right to bear arms" is drawn in concrete. It doesn't say anything about assault rifles, automatic weapons, or grenades. I want some grenades. I want them because I enjoy owning them. I enjoy blowing stuff up. They are "arms". That's my right. Right?

 

[Donny417]

You may feel protected by your 9mm, I feel protected with my door unlocked and a phone. I love guns as much as the next guy, but I don't see where the "right to bear arms" is drawn in concrete. It doesn't say anything about assault rifles, automatic weapons, or grenades. I want some grenades. I want them because I enjoy owning them. I enjoy blowing stuff up. They are "arms". That's my right. Right?

If someone sneaks into my house, regardless if they use a window or door or forces entry or not, and they're armed, I'd much rather have a gun on my nightstand next to my phone, than simply a phone. To me it's just common sense.

The "right to bear arms" isn't drawn in concrete, it's written in the Constitution.

grenades and bombs are a bit much, but yeah I can see how they'd be fun! However, I support laws the way they currently stand (at least in my State).

1) semi-automatic weapons are legal for legal citizens (e.g. non-felons) and require background checks, as I believe all guns should.
2) full-automatic weapons are illegal to own (without class III permit)
3) grenades, napalm, explosives illegal. Those aren't "arms", those are destructive devices, and no, you don't have the right to own one.

I'm not advocating lifting the existing ban on fully automatic or destructive devices, I'm simply saying don't infringe on my Constitutionally protected right, regardless of my reason to exercise that right be it entertainment, self defense, or a paranoia of government tyranny or anything else.

When my wife and I walk our chocolate labs in the park at night, I want to know I can protect her. When I drive to St. Louis on business, I want to know I can protect myself. I don't carry a gun to shoot people, I carry a gun so I don't have to retreat from my dwelling if threatened, give up my personal property I worked hard for by force, or feel the regret of thinking I could have done more if the well being of those I care about are threatened in my presence. This is a fundamental essential for me, and a sense of well being that I enjoy which is unfortunately not shared by many in this world.

Plus, nailing a 2" group at 40 yards with a .357 magnum is better than any video game!

 

[unstopablepuffers]

You may feel protected by your 9mm, I feel protected with my door unlocked and a phone. I love guns as much as the next guy, but I don't see where the "right to bear arms" is drawn in concrete. It doesn't say anything about assault rifles, automatic weapons, or grenades. I want some grenades. I want them because I enjoy owning them. I enjoy blowing stuff up. They are "arms". That's my right. Right?

well yes, you can have grenades and use them. on your property. x= distance frome domiceieles(spelling?) and highways etc..

 

[unstopablepuffers]

most laws are against transport not possesion or use

 

[ewurm]

If someone sneaks into my house, regardless if they use a window or door or forces entry or not, and they're armed, I'd much rather have a gun on my nightstand next to my phone, than simply a phone. To me it's just common sense.

The "right to bear arms" isn't drawn in concrete, it's written in the Constitution.

grenades and bombs are a bit much, but yeah I can see how they'd be fun! However, I support laws the way they currently stand (at least in my State).

1) semi-automatic weapons are legal for legal citizens (e.g. non-felons) and require background checks, as I believe all guns should.
2) full-automatic weapons are illegal to own (without class III permit)
3) grenades, napalm, explosives illegal. Those aren't "arms", those are destructive devices, and no, you don't have the right to own one.

I'm not advocating lifting the existing ban on fully automatic or destructive devices, I'm simply saying don't infringe on my Constitutionally protected right, regardless of my reason to exercise that right be it entertainment, self defense, or a paranoia of government tyranny or anything else.

When my wife and I walk our chocolate labs in the park at night, I want to know I can protect her. When I drive to St. Louis on business, I want to know I can protect myself. I don't carry a gun to shoot people, I carry a gun so I don't have to retreat from my dwelling if threatened, give up my personal property I worked hard for by force, or feel the regret of thinking I could have done more if the well being of those I care about are threatened in my presence. This is a fundamental essential for me, and a sense of well being that I enjoy which is unfortunately not shared by many in this world.

Plus, nailing a 2" group at 40 yards with a .357 magnum is better than any video game!

So you advocate ownership of the AR-15 and AK 47 semi automatic versions for home protection, because it's your right under the second amendment, or because it's fun to own and shoot them? Which of these is your stance?

 

[unstopablepuffers]

So you advocate ownership of the AR-15 and AK 47 semi automatic versions for home protection, because it's your right under the second amendment, or because it's fun to own and shoot them? Which of these is your stance?

i know this may be off track but........ if the u.s. is ever to be invadided think gun laws will make us or them happy? say x-country comes here knowing that we got rid of our personal protection, or knowing that we are all packin? bet they cant send enuf troops to deal with 3 million armed civilians. plus military.

 

[xdragonxb0i]

I dont hate guns nor do i own one.

AKs i bet are being targeted because that is what most of the middle east "terrorist" use.

What is the point of a fully automatic gun? its overkill for protection, a handgun is enough. this may be BS, but i think handguns are more dangerous, since they are easier to conceal.

IMO if you need protection get a handgun, if you want to hunt you also shouldn't need more then a semi-automatic weapon. my mentality is if you gotta shoot something, make the shot count, one shot one kill.

The only reason i could find for using an fully automatic is just to shoot it for fun.

 

[ewurm]

i know this may be off track but........ if the u.s. is ever to be invadided think gun laws will make us or them happy? say x-country comes here knowing that we got rid of our personal protection, or knowing that we are all packin? bet they cant send enuf troops to deal with 3 million armed civilians. plus military.

I'm sure other countries are worried about "Armed Civilians". The government has artillery, automatic weapons, explosives, and let's not forget the Air Force. But hey, don't forget to count the farmers who have pitch forks.