Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Here we go agiain people on this site commenting on firearms - uninformed.

Posted 5 years ago on Dec. 21, 2012, 1:16 p.m. EST by Shayneh (-482)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I would guess that there are probably a few people on this site who really have any understanding about firearms - the rest like everyone to think they know but they don't

Comments like our forefathers rifles weren't accurate, or military grade assualt weapons - high powered military grade assault weapons - the list goes on and on.

If you want to comment on firearms please educate yourself about what you are going to talk about when it comes to firearms.

Secondly, semi automatic firearms such as AR-15 or those that shoot the .223 are not high powered firearms as most would like to think.

So if you are going to comment on firearms, make an intelligent and informed comment instead of parroting what the news media or others who haven't a clue say.



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 5 years ago

guns are for scared, weak, little stunted people. The powerless seeking power,. and proving their weakness of character.

[-] 2 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

It is apparent you know nothing about "gun ownership" to make such an ass wipe statement.

Your response is typical to a lot of people on this site who think they have all the answers but don't have the experience to understand how to come up with the answers.

Get some experience on gun ownership then come back and just maybe you may be able to make some sense of what you say.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 5 years ago

What do you know of my experience? I speak truth, you of assumptions you make with no basis. guns are tools for weak people who do not have the will or skill to deal with the people they kill or the animals for that matter,. sad and pathetic excuses are all they have.

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

Well if you think guns were tools for weak people this country would still be under British rule wouldn't it?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

What is there to know? Guns are for killing. If you hunt fine and dandy - you don't need to spray your planned on meal with 30 or more rounds of lead - one is preferred as that destroys less meat for the table.

Take pride in hunting - one shot = one Goose or one Duck or one Deer.

Control patience skill.

Ban semi-auto guns and high round capacity clips.

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

Well FYI people do hunt with semi automatic rifles for deer and that doesn't make them any more or less a hunter then those who hunt with revolvers or bolt action rifles.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

But they do not need to.

[-] -1 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

Even after you have stood guard motionless or hidden on a tree overnight and been bitten many times by mosquitoes, a deer may still not appear. Deer just do not come by often. We arm our fishermen with high-tech fish finders. What do we arm our deer hunters to ensure the great chance of big kills? One answer is semi-automatic rifles. It is not "sporty" but for people who live off of nature's meat market, they help.


[-] 2 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

Yes, there has been a deer population explosion in anti-gun states in more recent years because we fell in love with Bambi. Soon we may see Bambi hopping onto my car's windshield delivering presents for our holidays.


[-] 1 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

A reason for the lack of suitable habitat for hunting is because of some laws against hunting that are not adjusted to fit the reality. It is virtually impossible to get some laws changed. Of course, I do not know for sure if it is true love for Bambi or not but there are prevailing bleeding-heart sentiments such as "Oh, poor things!" in some locales and "Not in my backyard" in others.


[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

Shut up Shayneh.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

ahhhhh- but you must know - he knows it all - just ask him

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

He needs to occupy a spell check.

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

Well the problem with my spelling is that I type at 60 wpm and sometimes get ahead of the computer and some letters are left out.

Other times I transpose letters so I don't see it as a problem - not compared to todays younger generation when it comes to pronunciation and spelling.

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

What would you like to know about firearms - I can probably answer most questions because I am very familiar with them - how about you?

What's your experience?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

why does anyone NEED an semi-automatic rifle?
why does anyone NEED a clip with more than 10 rounds?
why does amyone need a bazooka?
why does anyone need a grenade launcher?

[-] 2 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

Hmm. To be a freedom fighter of some effectiveness and not just to flit around buzzing?

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

I suppose you supportted david koresh
who used a currently available weapon to blow up a tank

[-] 1 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

What made you think that I had supported David Koresh? The thought is outlandish because I do not fall for fanatics or self-proclaimed messianic figures.

Nevertheless, any person would grab anything to defend themself against a tank charging at them.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Who (in America) would they be fighting for freedom against!?

[-] 1 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

It is always between "government(s)," which was, which is, and which is to come.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

You expect to us to be fighting against the US govt?

Seems kinda stupid. I prefer taking back the peoples govt by non violent action.

What is the plan for dealing with the drones, tanks, & misslies?

Ever heard of the Confederate States of America?

[-] 1 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

Hopefully and wisely not because mother nature will deal with the drones, tanks, and missiles non-violently. They will simply rust away as the U.S. becomes crippled by its dysfunctional political system and gets punished by the almighty capital flow. As a U.S. citizen, I frankly do not hope that it comes to that but we are certainly on track now.

Time destroys all weapons (including the most powerful nuclear weapons) so non-violent action is the wise way to go but I learned a long time ago that hedging was a very important survival skill. The U.S. is highly susceptible to becoming a fascist dictatorship because we jammed the roles of head-of-state and prime-minister into our single role of the President. The only time-tested way to achieve fair and square deals is the balance of power and you all know where that emanates from -- that is why veterans have already been classified as potential terrorists.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Wow. So you DO expect to take up arms against the US govt?

Or are you just hedging (prepping) for doomsday, every man for himself armed conflict?

[-] 1 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

The path to fascist dictatorship is well traveled. Our President being the Commander-in-Chief can start a foreign war ANY time. The executive branch that controls the domestic homeland is also under the President's command.

The thing that may prevent the President in a conflict with the Congress from dissolving Congress is the loyalty of the armed forces to their sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution but we have already seen it chipped away incredulously by our Congress and it has been proven in court case that our Commander-in-Chief can dismiss members of the armed forces who just utter that they will not follow unconstitutional orders. Aside from the armed forces, it is up to the people and what they have on hand. What if the President declares martial law due to the pretext of the foreign war to "shore up national security"?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

These are unfounded fantasies. In America we support civilian rule (President) ofthe military so he can dismiss anyone hewants. Theyserve at the pleasure ofthe President.

No marshall law is comin! No conflict with congress that might require military action is imminent.

And this Pres could have declared wars in Yemen. Libya, Syria, Iran, but has not even though the right wing war mongers have put lotsa pressure on him.

So no worries there. In fact the right wing wacko war mongers are very upset at the Defense secr nominee Hagel cause Hagel is a war skeptic.

So you can put the gun down, no marshal law on the horizon.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5173) 5 years ago

Having the personality of the President to prevent our falling into Alice's rabbit hole is a flimsy defense against becoming a fascist dictatorship. Once the President picks a fight that makes the President's control of the armed forces indispensable, we would be engaged.

A nice President does not address the structural defect of the concentration of power in the office. Nor is there any cure for the ineptness (in frittering away its own powers) or intransigence of our Congress if our people do not keep an eye on it. So far nothing has come of overturning the Supreme Court case of Citizens United even though the U.S. populace overwhelming support overturning it.

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

Why does anyone have to be violent. Why do people kill other people

Stop the violence and stop people from killing other people and gun ownership will take care of itself.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

the best way - make a wish - solve the problem

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 5 years ago

Your government has made murder legal.

Drone killing of dissidents and civilians is not a crime for officialdom, so why should it be a crime for the the rest of us westerners?

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

We are not talkng about "drone killing" we are talking about a targeted area of society that has violence tendencies - the youth of our society.

Lets stay focused on the issue - a segment of our society that is violent and has little or no regard for life

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 5 years ago

{quote}Lets stay focused on the issue - a segment of our society that is violent and has little or no regard for life. {unquote}

I am staying focussed Shayneh. Your statement describes exactly your military and government initiatives at regime change everywhere around the world.

Your people are copying these initiatives in their own backyards.

Can you see it now?

[-] 0 points by JenLynn (692) 5 years ago

The argument really shouldn't require knowledge of guns at all really. It comes down to several things.

1) If you have guns in the public's hands some people will misuse them and there will be deaths. 2) If you want to prevent all gun deaths, you have to ban all guns. 3) If you want to ban guns you need to repeal the second amendment.

If you don't have the votes or the will to do all of that or if you believe it's impossible to make a ban work, then put up with the occasional crazy person killing. The fact is these mass murders, bad as they are, are only a very tiny portion of gun deaths.

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

Well, I disagee - if you want to stop people from misuses of guns - lets groom our society so that only good people are out in public. Then there wouldn't be a need for a person to own a weapon.

Solve that problem and you will solve all of societies woes - violence is as violence does -

Now we could put a ban on ownership for parents who have children. That would also make a big difference. So, there are options without getting into banning firearms.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 5 years ago

Actually we do agree, at least I agree with what you just stated. My gun control thing was what I see as our best options with regard to guns and only guns. Ban them or don't, but don't let government nibble away at rights by playing semantic games and restricting some guns but not others.

The "ban the assault weapon" group goes after what causes the smallest number of murders. I see that as a bit dishonest. There are already hundreds of millions of guns out there and criminals are not likely to turn them in amendment or no amendment. Guns are going to be with us for a long time. Your solution is probably a dream, but even partial success would work toward reducing crimes of all types.

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

Well thank you for agreeing with me. We definitely have to do something about people who are violent and agressive -

Locking down the schools and placing armed guards is not the solution - we are becoming a "police society" - police everywhere we go - just like in 3rd world countries.

The focus needs to be placed on those people who have "mental disabilities" and understand that they need to be in more of a controlled enviornment - not restraining them but more monitoring.

It can be done in a "civil manner" without infringing on the indivduals rights to be a free and productive individual when it comes to their disability.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 5 years ago

It's complex and can't be solved by an oversimplified partial ban. I've felt a little attacked for saying anything about a total ban, but see that as making more sense and being more honest then renewing the assault weapons ban.

I mentioned in a response to someone else that murder rates have been dropping since 2006. We need to put some effort into finding out why. The assault weapon ban ended in 2004, so apparently it wasn't the reason for a drop in the murder rate.