ar-15

[Bob Denman]

Or on the badge of the organization.

This one?

NRA Benefactor.jpg

[Lew L]

Exactly WHO: is everyone?
"Evil" is in the mind and heart, of the beholder...

A few pages back-- I get reamed out for using the word " they" but somehow " everyone" is OK

Actually I was trying to ignore this thread but I did check in on how well Bob points some of folks to the facts. So thank you Bob.

Lew L

[LeftCoast]

I'm new here so am going to tread lightly, plus I hope to meet you all one day on a Spyder ride and would rather not have this discussion as part of the first meeting with all of you (although I have read every post.) I will say that compared to the War, Religion and Politics forum I have been participating in on a lightly moderated sports team board for a long period of time and intensely since the shooting, you all have been amazing civil all things considered. Interestingly I will say though, the points being argued and rebutted are pretty much the same although I think the age demographic here is probably older just given the hobby we enjoy riding is an economic stretch for many in their 20's and 30's that participate in sporting forums.

One thing, and I am a gun owner and support the 2nd amendment but not to the point that others do in terms of what I feel I need to own (nor do I have the experience that many of you do both with the knowledge and use of firearms), but I have been struggling with the idea that there should be no limit to what the 2nd amendment guarantees as far as gun ownership. Many believe the 2nd guarantees the right to own the AR. Okay, but before it was invented no one needed to own it so why is it deemed a "right to own" now? Does this mean any weapon invented in the future is also guaranteed under the 2nd? The question is somewhat philosophical in nature and I am still thinking about the ramifications and how to even define "limits" and "gun types".

Another point that has started to take shape in my head though, given what I assume the average age is of those posting here (mid 40's and higher?), I wonder how much influence we are going to have over this debate in the future or even now. I say this having 18 and 14 year olds and how social media savvy they are and how they consume and disseminate information and just how they interpret the values we have given them. Both of them are Boy Scouts and know how to shoot btw. Many of you served (for that you will always have my respect and thanks, my father was a loader in a Sherman tank in WWII and helped clean up Dachau 8 days after it was liberated but pretty much never talked about it other than to say the smell of death was everywhere. The point being he taught me to respect those that served, always.) Where I'm going with this is I think there is a generation behind us that may feel very differently about guns and the right to own what type as they are the first real generation to get shot at in schools and dance clubs. Their world is so incredibly different than the one we grew up in, everything is faster and more complex due to the access to and speed of information (I am not one that thinks this is all good either.) Believe me the mom's are on point and passionate for their kids, their voices will be heard.

I don't pretend to know where it will go or how it will end up, but I am starting to think our "generation" has less dog in the hunt on this one than we think. It will be fascinating to see what happens 25 years from now if I am around to see it.

Respect to you all.

LeftCoast

P.S. I'll be out front yelling at the kids to get off my lawn.

[Machinegunner]

The 2nd amendment allowed for the current then, the most advanced weapons of the day. Nothing has changed today, except after 1986 no more machine guns could be sold to an individual. Only class 2 and class 3 dealers and law enforcement can own machine guns. Semi- autos are as close as we can get to military arms. Most are used legally for hunting and competition. We took prayer out of schools. Forbid teachers from disciplining the students, and when they got home if the parents disciplined them, the students could turn them into social services. How are you suppose to teach respect if you can't discipline? I think all this is where the problems with our society started and now we seeing the fruits of the experiment. IT DIDN'T WORK. Now what are we going to do about it? It's not the guns, or the types of guns. If there are no more guns the murderers will just use something else. The Aurora movie theater would have been far deadlier had he used bottles of gasoline. Should we ban gasoline just in case?

[Bob Denman]

Hiya "Lefty"!
Welcome to our own little version of, "Are you out of your MIND???"""

Not everything in here is this ugly, and I apologize if I've said anything to make you feel "squeamish" about speaking up.

We are a group of VERY diverse opinions, so a bit of this just has to happen every once in a while...

It's kind of like a pressure cooker blowing off some steam!

So while we don't agree on everything: at least we've got the "Spyder-Thing" right!

[LeftCoast]

Hiya "Lefty"!
Welcome to our own little version of, "Are you out of your MIND???"""

Not everything in here is this ugly, and I apologize if I've said anything to make you feel "squeamish" about speaking up.

We are a group of VERY diverse opinions, so a bit of this just has to happen every once in a while...

It's kind of like a pressure cooker blowing off some steam!

So while we don't agree on everything: at least we've got the "Spyder-Thing" right!

Ha not squeamish at all. Like I said you all have been very civil all things considered. I agree with some items and disagree with others and can more than hold my own but also have exhausted myself being very vocal on the other sports forum so I’m just trying to do more listening here. No one has changed anyone’s mind on anything! Plus I am new and would rather set the tone for my being here in some other areas than this being the first one if that makes sense.

I'm actually really impressed with your credentials from a firearm standpoint btw.

[Bob Denman]

Thanks!
I checked your profile, and there's no mention of a Spyder; are you still shopping?

[Bob Denman]

... It's not the guns, or the types of guns. If there are no more guns the murderers will just use something else...

Just check out my latest Avatar, and it'll show how easy it is to find a weapon!

"Megahertz": A German Heavy metal band with a really cool sound!


....and off the wall makeup!

[LeftCoast]

Thanks!
I checked your profile, and there's no mention of a Spyder; are you still shopping?

Yeah the “household conversation” on this one is going to take a good while but at least it’s on the table for discussion now.

Believe me you all will be the first to know when agreement is reached because I will start shopping about 5 mins after that.

[Bob Denman]

The best of luck to you in this endeavor!

[Joe T.]

I'm new here so am going to tread lightly, plus I hope to meet you all one day on a Spyder ride and would rather not have this discussion as part of the first meeting with all of you (although I have read every post.) I will say that compared to the War, Religion and Politics forum I have been participating in on a lightly moderated sports team board for a long period of time and intensely since the shooting, you all have been amazing civil all things considered. Interestingly I will say though, the points being argued and rebutted are pretty much the same although I think the age demographic here is probably older just given the hobby we enjoy riding is an economic stretch for many in their 20's and 30's that participate in sporting forums.

One thing, and I am a gun owner and support the 2nd amendment but not to the point that others do in terms of what I feel I need to own (nor do I have the experience that many of you do both with the knowledge and use of firearms), but I have been struggling with the idea that there should be no limit to what the 2nd amendment guarantees as far as gun ownership. Many believe the 2nd guarantees the right to own the AR. Okay, but before it was invented no one needed to own it so why is it deemed a "right to own" now? Does this mean any weapon invented in the future is also guaranteed under the 2nd? The question is somewhat philosophical in nature and I am still thinking about the ramifications and how to even define "limits" and "gun types".

Another point that has started to take shape in my head though, given what I assume the average age is of those posting here (mid 40's and higher?), I wonder how much influence we are going to have over this debate in the future or even now. I say this having 18 and 14 year olds and how social media savvy they are and how they consume and disseminate information and just how they interpret the values we have given them. Both of them are Boy Scouts and know how to shoot btw. Many of you served (for that you will always have my respect and thanks, my father was a loader in a Sherman tank in WWII and helped clean up Dachau 8 days after it was liberated but pretty much never talked about it other than to say the smell of death was everywhere. The point being he taught me to respect those that served, always.) Where I'm going with this is I think there is a generation behind us that may feel very differently about guns and the right to own what type as they are the first real generation to get shot at in schools and dance clubs. Their world is so incredibly different than the one we grew up in, everything is faster and more complex due to the access to and speed of information (I am not one that thinks this is all good either.) Believe me the mom's are on point and passionate for their kids, their voices will be heard.

I don't pretend to know where it will go or how it will end up, but I am starting to think our "generation" has less dog in the hunt on this one than we think. It will be fascinating to see what happens 25 years from now if I am around to see it.

Respect to you all.

LeftCoast

P.S. I'll be out front yelling at the kids to get off my lawn.

Excellent post! Thank you.

The Second 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."

It is really hard for me to understand how this allows semi and auto weapons of today. Our forefathers had muskets, muzzle loading pistols and rifles, and cannon when they wrote this. Do we really think this amendment allows semi-auto rifles If so, why not bazookas, flame throwers, grenades, 50 caliber machine guns, and suitcase nuclear weapons? Where does the line stand? Please help.

Regards,
Joe T.

[Joe T.]

In defense of our 'Left Coast' friend, when I moved to LA in 1985, I had NEVER seen so many 'gun nuts' in my life! And, I grew up in Texas, where guns are everywhere. Guys who lived in tiny apartments has arsenals! Every weekend they would go out into the desert and blast away!

Don't be fooled by the 'LIB' status of California today. That could change in a heartbeat if things truly 'go south.' Those suckers are well armed!

Joe T.

[Blue Star]

I want an rpg, i wanna scream shark, i don't want to wear a seatbelt, i don't need headlights at night, i shouldn't
have to pay school taxes, i want free cigarettes & cable tv when i'm in jail.

These things you mention are constitutional rights, so what is your point? Okay, maybe the "rpg" would fall into this category.

[LeftCoast]

In defense of our Left Coast' friend, when I moved to LA in 1985, I had NEVER seen so many 'gun nuts' in my life! And, I grew up in Texas, where guns are everywhere. Guys who lived in tiny apartments has arsenals! Every weekend they would go out into the desert and blast away!

Don't be fooled by the 'LIB' status of California today. That could change in a heartbeat if things truly 'go south.'

Joe T.

Thanks. I think the part of my post the intrigues me the most is how the moms, 20 something’s and younger drive this debate. I guarantee they are riding a bigger faster horse than we are AND they don’t see or experience the world in the same way we do. At all.

To them, all our VCRs are blinking 12:00

[Joe T.]

Thanks. I think the part of my post the intrigues me the most is how the moms, 20 something’s and younger drive this debate. I guarantee they are riding a bigger faster horse than we are AND they don’t see or experience the world in the same way we do. At all.

To them, all our VCRs are blinking 12:00

Ya' mean they can see my VCR?!?!?!? Oh No!!! The sky is falling!!!



Joe T.

[LeftCoast]

Ya' mean they can see my VCR?!?!?!? Oh No!!! The sky is falling!!!



Joe T.

Ironically a VCR may be the only thing they can’t see you on nowadays.

[Bob Denman]

Excellent post! Thank you.

The Second 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."

It is really hard for me to understand how this allows semi and auto weapons of today. Our forefathers had muskets, muzzle loading pistols and rifles, and cannon when they wrote this. Do we really think this amendment allows semi-auto rifles If so, why not bazookas, flame throwers, grenades, 50 caliber machine guns, and suitcase nuclear weapons? Where does the line stand? Please help.

Regards,
Joe T.

Hi Joe!
Based upon your logic: the internet, television, radio, teletypes, microwave transmissions, and even ball-point pens should never have been allowed to develop.

[PrairieSpyder]

Virtually everyone agrees the NRA is a significant problem. They buy Congresspeople to explicitly prevent anti-gun legislation. They value your right to own guns over the lives of your children. They represent but a small fraction of gun owners. They are evil.

Millions of Americans do NOT agree. Maybe you should say "virtually everyone I know."

The NRA donations to campaigns is a drop in the bucket compared to union and Planned Parenthood contributions. The NRA's clout comes from the huge membership it represents, and they vote!

[Blue Star]

Virtually everyone agrees the NRA is a significant problem. They buy Congresspeople to explicitly prevent anti-gun legislation. They value your right to own guns over the lives of your children. They represent but a small fraction of gun owners. They are evil.

First off, I do not agree that the NRA is the problem, so your wrong when you say "virtually everyone" agrees. How can you say they are the problem, and value my right to own guns over the lives of my children? As a NRA member I do not value my gun ownership over anyone's life.

You state that the NRA buy's congress people to prevent anti-gun legislation, so there has to be some organization that is buying congress people to push the gun legislation. Honestly I don't know who they are, but I'm sure someone will inform me.

You feel the NRA is evil because they value our rights to own a gun, but some nut case who kills others randomly is not evil? I think you have your priorities wrong.

I have to ask you since you are one of those that believe the NRA is the problem. Why is it that everyone is saying it is the NRA's fault for this shooting, but the FBI has already been proven to have not done their job that they are paid to do. Is it a case of they thought all their information was wrong, or they wanted this to happen to push the gun ban agenda?

[PrairieSpyder]

The Constitution does not recognize the speed or technology of communication. What is your point?

Nor does it recognize technological advances in firearms. What's you point?

[RinconRyder]

Thank you for a brief moment of lucidity.
If you were actually trying to be a member of this community: you would know Al...
He and I disagree on tons of things... but he's still a friend!

The only thing we will likely have in common is Spyder ownership. If that constitutes friendship then so be it. If not.....oh well.

[PrairieSpyder]

CBS interviewed a teacher (I forgot his location but believe it was in rural CO) who stuffs a Glock 9mm in his boot (with District permission). I just wonder if he is prepared to challenge an AR-15 with his little tiny Glock.

Depends on the situation. In a direct shootout like on Gunsmoke, it would depend on who's faster and has better aim.

But in a school or home invasion against a single bad guy, the 9mm user would be in cover until he can get a good shot. Like when the rifle user turns around or moves. Any gun is better than no gun.

Street gunfights, as depicted on Hollywood Westerns, did not happen very often. Most killings in the Old West were ambushes of one sort or the other. But if a shooter is equipped with a semi-auto and isn't boldly walking down the hallways of the building he has a good advantage should the handgun holder make himself known. Given the choice, which gun would you prefer in a shootout? No need to answer.

As far as your "any gun" statement goes, you have got it all wrong. Virtually every police force agrees they do not want civilians running around a shooting site with guns. You likely would be mistaken by the cops or another civilian for the bad guy and suffer the consequences. Or you might shoot an innocent person you thought was the bad guy. Those scenes are highly chaotic and happen almost instantly.

And, everybody seems to zero in on school shootings but that isn't the only target here. How do all the arguments work when the site is a general gathering of people as in Las Vegas?

No, the only true solution to mass shootings is to ban the weapons used. That leaves plenty of types for hunting, target shooting and self defense.

Now you've changed the scenario from your original comment.

You're the one who posited a direct gunfight with people using the two guns in question. I only mentioned street shoot-outs to indicate the absurdity of saying a defender with a 9mm can't go against bad guy with an AR-15. I have no interest in discussing old west history.

As far as what the police want . . I don't care what they want. I will take responsibility for defending myself, in the absence of a police presence - which would be the most critical time. As soon as a policeman shows up, my weapon is down and my hands would be up.

Of course, I totally disagree with the banning of weapons used in mass shootings so I needn't address that.

[RinconRyder]

The 2nd amendment allowed for the current then, the most advanced weapons of the day. Nothing has changed today, The 2nd Amendment makes no allowances for advanced vs otherwise. You are reading into it what you would like it to say.

except after 1986 no more machine guns could be sold to an individual. Wrong again. One of my sons, a former active duty Marine and range supervisor, owns an MP-40 and takes it out every once in awhile when he saves up enough money to buy a ten-second burst.


We took prayer out of schools. Separation of church and state is one, if not the most important, facets of our nation. Although organized religion still causes many problems none have become as terrible as those of religious nations.

Forbid teachers from disciplining the students,

Schools are forbidden from using physical violence to discipline students but they do, in fact, discipline them - at least in my district.

How are you suppose to teach respect if you can't discipline?

Respect is earned, not beaten into someone.

I think all this is where the problems with our society started and now we seeing the fruits of the experiment. IT DIDN'T WORK. Now what are we going to do about it? It's not the guns, or the types of guns. If there are no more guns the murderers will just use something else. The Aurora movie theater would have been far deadlier had he used bottles of gasoline. Should we ban gasoline just in case?

I can just imagine someone trying to haul a suitcase of Molotov Cocktails into a movie theater. You watch way too much TV.

Your statements tell me the source of your information. You should stop watching Fox News for opinion masquerading as news.

..

[PrairieSpyder]

. . .

One thing, and I am a gun owner and support the 2nd amendment but not to the point that others do in terms of what I feel I need to own (nor do I have the experience that many of you do both with the knowledge and use of firearms), but I have been struggling with the idea that there should be no limit to what the 2nd amendment guarantees as far as gun ownership.

I've been hearing a lot of folks say "I support the 2nd Amendment, but . . ." That's when I go on alert for a proposed limit to our rights. That's like saying "I support the 1st Amendment, but not when people are saying . . . " And that is happening, too, on college campuses around the country.

LeftCoast, I can't wait to hear you've gotten a Spyder and will post some pics of it.

[Joe T.]

Hi Joe!
Based upon your logic: the internet, television, radio, teletypes, microwave transmissions, and even ball-point pens should never have been allowed to develop.

Bob, shame on you! That ain't my logic, it's your convoluted logic!



Please try to keep this discussion on track. We don't need the useless diversions some are so well know for.


Regards,
Joe T.