Sure, but we were also discussing different kinds of guns. Even a revolver is effective for defense, whether as a deterrent or something more.
I'm not talking about needing to defend myself against gangbangers with guns. I'm talking about the basic self defense of my home. I should be able to have the same basic guns that a regular policemen can have--semi-automatic handguns, AR-15 semi-auto, and shotguns. My point with the Mexican gangbangers is that they manage to get guns even though guns are pretty much illegal for private citizens to own in Mexico. Do you think things will be much different here? Do you think magically if we disarm civilians that the criminals will disarm, and not be able to get their hands on firearms?
Then why have police abandoned revolvers? Why shouldn't I be able to own the same gun that a 20 year old police officer can carry? Police officers have been shown to commit more violent crimes with guns per capita than citizens with concealed carry permits. There is no good reason for limiting me to revolvers. It's not as if criminals won't have good guns, if I'm limited.
So you want policemen to be able to enter houses warrant free? If guns were totally banned, nobody would know I had a gun. Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens doesn't make things safer, in fact, it's the opposite.
Given that such a scenario would be a gross violation of the 2nd Amendment, I think I, and millions of others, would form a formidable resistance to such confiscation. Armed militia's have proven difficult for government forces to contain. Would anyone really embrace such chaos and carnage?
If I were worried about venomous snakes in the yard. Other than that it's next to useless. .410 is not an adequate self defense round. It fires .45LC fairly inaccurately. And it's huge. Also Taurus has quality control problems. It's better than nothing, but I'd rather have a 9mm Semi-automatic, like the one that I've owned for over 30 years.
That's absolutely ludicrous. That isn't my logic at all. Never said anything about anyone turning in anyone. And even if someone did turn in a lawbreaker, in the US, NO ONE is sent to extermination camps. You are not at all able to think logically, are you?
Thelma, if the 2nd Amendment is removed from the Constitution, I would comply with the Constitution. (The Constitution says nothing about seat belts or cell phones.) But if there is no change to the Constitution and if, for example, the government banned the possession of rifles and pistols with a detachable magazine, I think there are regions in the U.S. where states, counties, and cities just simply wouldn't enforce the law. Governors, county and city officials, and law enforcement would just not do it. If what we're concerned about is "active shooter" crimes, just imagine the absurdity of arresting peaceful, otherwise law-abiding people in response - men and women, young and old, professionals and blue collar, dads and moms ... people who would never pose any threat to society ever. I'm a retired police officer, and I know that a lot of law enforcement would have no interest in doing this, and they wouldn't do it.
The confiscation would be done in "baby steps" to avoid outright confrontations. First is "universal background checks" that require gov oversight for private sales. Then comes the "common sense" database tracking to see who owns what (if you don't have anything to hide why would you object, kwim?). They are already collecting the info (not legal but we know they are) they only need to make using the info legal. Then they start eliminating only the "worst" weapons, one at a time so the pain thresh hold remains bearable. First just ARs, then anything that can hold more than 10 rounds, etc... They wheedle it down a little at a time so in each case citizens will give up the "registered" AR if they can keep their other weapons and avoid prison. And when the final stage of confiscation starts the populace only has 6 shot revolvers and can't offer much resistance anyway.
The Supreme Court has determined that the 2nd Amendment does not mean there can be absolutely no restrictions. The time is coming to ban certain types of guns. If you don't comply, you are a criminal.
That is right. Soon a liberal controlled SCOTUS will declare that owing any gun that is not a muzzle loader will make you a criminal. In a 1979 interview entitled Inside New York’s Art World, artist Louise Nevelson said: “I think that when someone is willing to live and die for something…that means it is in the genes.” That pretty much sums it up. American patriots love their freedom and are willing to die for it...it is in our genes. There is something that is lacking in the liberals confused mind that does not value freedom. This confusion is not only about freedom and the right to bear arms. Their confused state can be seen in their love for homosexuality, for their belief that a man with a penis is a woman and vice versa. For their love of drugs and decades of killing tens of millions of babies, it is surprising how the dems can look at themselves in the mirror and not want to slit their wrists. I think the dems demented and twisted world just feeds on itself. This can be seen in the hell holes they have created for themselves in their dem controlled cities. In an effort to escape their self-made hell, the dems are always looking to control others by taking away freedoms. They suffer from 'perfection syndrome.' If a gun hurts someone...ban guns, if a knife cuts someone...ban knives and so forth and so on. The dems don't will not accept that with freedom comes abuse. It is just the price you pay to be free.
All this bravado about dying for your guns is just online BS. Hiding behind your computer screen you can say anything. LOL Not impressed, but, rather, LMAO.
Yes, but you're conflating reasonable restrictions (like against felons and the insane) with unreasonable restrictions. So far, the SC has tried to balance reasonable restrictions with the "right of the people ..." portion of the 2A. If the government tries to go to far, it will violate that portion of the 2A. Ironically, that same rhetoric - "you're a criminal" - was used against Rosa Parks and MLK during their peaceful resistance in defense of civil rights. Gun owners who simply refused to turn in their guns would be an example of peaceful, passive resistance in defense of their civil rights. There's a time and place for that, don't you agree?
There is no logical comparison between gunnuts and Rosa Parks: give it up. And banning assault weapons that are used to do mass shootings is reasonable, very reasonable. You're on the road to perdition: buckle up. LOL
So you think the Feds should be cracking down on pot smokers, pot shops and going after states that violate immigration laws?.....or is that different?
I was looking at buying one and even found a good price for a blued model, but changed my mind because it only takes .45 long colt. The S&W Governor takes both long Colt and ACP along with .410 shells.
Goes to show that there are some good options out there for defense that wouldn't necessarily be so good for public assaults.
Agreed. A pump shotgun is always a good choice. I prefer 12 gauge, but for women and young adults a 20 gauge is sufficient. A coach or over-under allows the use of "cut shells" which have a significant impact factor, a poor man's slug:
The government/law enforcement agencies already bust pot smokers and deport immigration violaters. What is your point? If people break the law, they are subject to punishment, duh. You are not making any kind of valid argument. None.
Often when debating on the forum, both sides just keep repeating themselves thinking they can find the absolute winning words, which of course impossible. I understand your sentiment. If it were outlawing all firearms I would feel the same. But taking such great personal risks of felony conviction and lose of all firearms not just affecting me, but all my family and all around it, because the list of what was restricted has again been expanded such as the Democrat bill? No. I would still have the firearms that conquered the entire United States and won every war we have been in thru WW1, plus the firearms police carried in this country for over 100 years - and more plus modern firearms as well, though not semi-auto if outlawed, it is not worth the risk for what would be a symbolic protest only in my head - so to speak. BUT my risks likely vastly higher than your's is. I have a true arsenal that would possibly make national and maybe world news as one of those seemingly crazed old gun kooks that would press the government to go for the max - and it no secret I have such - so I would more likely get on a federal raid list, rather than the local sheriff making the call. It's one thing for someone to have a couple AR15s and 9mms. Its another thing if someone has 100+ prohibited firearms as scary and Browning 1919s plus a "legal" Browning 50 cal and a 20mm out of a P47 somewhere and over a ton or maybe two of ammo for that "arsenal." I'm not sure why in a way, I'm not really into shooting. But like stamp collecting or the guy who will spend $700,000 for that rarest of all stamp or coin, somehow just ended up with all this. Yet even if I dumped all of those? I'd still have an arsenal of well over 100+. So my situation also may be a bit different than yours. No, the local sheriff won't be coming with a warrant to search what you have. But hoping for a big PR media score, a BAFT swat team along with their cameras might make a point to check out what I may have kept hoping to get lucky. Thinking of it, there is one if banned I might put in a cylinder and bury off property and not a valuable one unable to let it go. A beat up old pre-serial number but modern powder 12 gauge Savage pump - not worth $150 for cosmetic appearance. But long, long ago in most absolutely real ways, it saved my life. (PM)
