Can someone tell me where in the 2nd amendment it says you can carry machine guns?

[Brian37]

I agree, Brian, you and I both have a right to discuss our viewpoints....for now.  Those same powerful people who seek to remove our 2nd amendment rights have been hard at work for many years attempting to do away with our right to speak freely.  If you haven't noticed that, then maybe you aren't noticing much that those who would see a Communist America have been doing bit by bit, nudge by nudge...progressive tactics well learned over a century.

I find it interesting, GS, that you went automatically from gun rights to prayer.  Do you think those who support our 2nd amendment must be theists in reality?  I don't pray because I am an atheist, but damn right that sounds like an amazing firearm!  

I find it odd that a gun enthusiast like yourself links other atheists who own guns with theists.  Why do you own guns?  Why do you have what seems to be some superior attitude about your gun ownership?  Why do you believe that only you can own guns and speak about guns and the 2nd in a rational manner?  Will your guns not fire bullets into living flesh with the goal of killing?

Another poster just said it was past time that all guns be removed from those of us, who own them.  Did they mean from you, as well?  Do you believe that will ensure a safer world?  No...you aren't that naive, are you?

If it is crime that you mean to scour from the nation, then talk about those tactics that actually work.  Our courts should prosecute petty crimes committed with firearms to the fullest extent possible.  Assault with a gun handled the same.  Then we could begin on crimes committed with knives and when the criminals start using acid, the courts could prosecute them again to the fullest extent possible.  Soon...only law-abiding citizens will own guns and knives and acid and the criminal element of society will be totally outlawed and banned.  Or something like that...kind of, maybe, possibly...

Yes...let us get all the guns out of the hands of criminals first.

DAMN you keep missing my point.

PLEASE STOP painting false doomsday slippery slopes in your head that DONT EXIST.

NOBODY I consider sane, and certainly not the majority of even liberal gun owners, LIBERALS OWN GUNS TOO, the majority is NOT out to end the 2nd amendment. PLEASE STOP THINKING THAT. Gawdzilla owns guns too, but he isn't flipping out over my arguments.

"Get them out of the hands of the criminals"

This is what you keep failing to see.

You can have no record at time of buy and then go on to fuck up. THAT is actually where most firearm injuries/deaths happen. The crap about stranger vs stranger is a MYTH. The most likely injuries and deaths happen with someone the user is familiar with.

The suicides, the kids accidentally shooting themselves, the suicides and domestic homicides as a majority start with someone who either flew under the radar and or was legal at time of buy with no record. Stranger vs stranger is your least likely firearm interaction.

Now please, feel free to find anywhere in this post I said, "End the 2nd Amendment and ban every single firearm". YOU WONT FIND THOSE WORDS IN THIS POST, nor ever in my history on the web debating this issue for that matter.

"Good intent" isn't enough. "Legal at time of buy" isn't enough. That is all I said. PLEASE STOP assuming, buying into fear and don't put thoughts into my head that are not there.

And even outside the issue with guns, crime of any kind. For the past 40 years our attitude has been about "crime prevention" as wait until something bad happens, then warehouse. That isn't prevention, that is allowing conditions to fester and grow.

Prevention isn't about banning anything, anymore than adding seat belts or air bags prevents you from driving.

[Brian37]

Here is a Navy VET, a lifetime of handling and owning firearms. And I'd bet, even if we talked to him today, he would say "NO, I don't want a ban on all firearms, but we need more sanity regarding our laws"

Here is a person with a history of LEGAL firearm ownership, who understands, like I do, that the NRA is not what it started out as. 

http://time.com/4061490/nra-gun-control/

UGGG ^^^^^ I do however wish media and liberals would not call it "gun control" but call it "gun safety".

And America's most popular beer CEO, also a former long time NRA member got tired of the do nothing insanity of the NRA.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickal...87cdd0131a

I do believe firearm owners when they say they have good intent. I don't however think they understand that it isn't about rights, but about 1 lobby holding our nation hostage. If Gawdzilla as a firearm owner, and those in the links above get it as firearm owners, then again, you don't have to listen to me. Listen to firearm owners who understand what the real problem is.

[Silver]

I give the government my consent to take away all your guns.

[TheRealJoeFish]

Perhaps somewhat in line with the above, I'd advocate (at least theoretically) - in the same way that some places put pictures of diseased lungs on cigarettes - for guns to come with a warning, or an advertisement, or a contract to be signed, that says, essentially: "If you buy this gun for self-defense, just be aware that it is far more likely to put a bullet in you or a family member than in a criminal. So, every time you imagine this gun stopping a home invader, also imagine it shooting your spouse or children. Just as long as we're clear about that."

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Right, and I agree, but right now at this point in history, it is way out of hand.

But people aren't allowed to own machine guns or howitzers.

I own a fully functional Browning M2 .05 cal. HMG, and I have a completely legal license for it.

[Brian37]

I give the government my consent to take away all your guns.

^^^^^^ This does NOT help and is a utopia regardless. 

Now far right worshipers, KEEP READING THIS, I don't agree what Luthrinae wants, even if I wanted that, it isn't pragmatic or realistic.

We are stuck with what the founders wrote. NO I am NOT for banning every single firearm. I am not against hunting or target shooting, not even against home defense. 

It is realistic to say, we don't vet properly. It is reasonable to say, you can have a firearm with PROPER vetting and training. You can have a riffle or handgun 8 bullet max. But, when at home not in use, keep it locked up, keep it away from kids at all times. Assume it is loaded at all times. Never point it at anyone. Keep it out of the hands of the mentally ill and out of the hands of abusers. And nobody should be allowed to stockpile pretending to be an army.

Your comment does not help, and that is just as bad as the far right do nothing. 

Liberals hate it when they accuse us of tyranny, lets not give them that fuel by saying unrealistic crap like like your quote. No firearms will never happen. You can change things without chasing impossible utopias.

---

But people aren't allowed to own machine guns or howitzers.

I own a fully functional Browning M2 .05 cal. HMG, and I have a completely legal license for it.

Yes, ok, but again, if you agree not everyone should have one, like your cousins then the issue isn't about you personally, but our collective sample rate as part of a long term attitude.

Didn't you also say in another post that you keep them locked up at a gun range and no longer keep them at home? 

If our government said, "Look, we will buy it back in the full amount so you don't lose money" and they said, "We wont prevent you from buying something else as a firearm" would that be theft or an all out ban, or a compromise?

To me that is no different than car companies being told by the government, look, you can keep making cars, but you need to get the lead out of gas, and you need better safety features. 

If every firearm owner thought like you, i would have no problem with most, but the problem is not every firearm owner thinks like you. 

If I owned a firearm and government said, "nobody needs to own that particular model" I wouldn't object to that as long as they paid me for the money I spent on it, and I could replace it with something else. 

I wish every firearm owner thought like you, but again, not enough do think like you.

---

Perhaps somewhat in line with the above, I'd advocate (at least theoretically) - in the same way that some places put pictures of diseased lungs on cigarettes - for guns to come with a warning, or an advertisement, or a contract to be signed, that says, essentially: "If you buy this gun for self-defense, just be aware that it is far more likely to put a bullet in you or a family member than in a criminal.  So, every time you imagine this gun stopping a home invader, also imagine it shooting your spouse or children.  Just as long as we're clear about that."

If that had been the marketing the entire time, it might work, but it is way after the fact.

Gun safety organizations have been screaming those stats for decades. I doubt if those warning labels were mandated on guns the far right would pay attention to them.

And especially with kids. You can make it about the parent all you want, but if the kid gets affected by it, how does the kid have any say? That is as bad as second hand smoke. Even today I see parents smoke holding babies or in a car with closed windows and kids in the back seat. Gun ranges with instructors didn't stop a girl from accidentally killing her instructor with an uzi. 

The vetting matters, I'd agree with those labels too, if I thought they would help.

---

Perhaps somewhat in line with the above, I'd advocate (at least theoretically) - in the same way that some places put pictures of diseased lungs on cigarettes - for guns to come with a warning, or an advertisement, or a contract to be signed, that says, essentially: "If you buy this gun for self-defense, just be aware that it is far more likely to put a bullet in you or a family member than in a criminal.  So, every time you imagine this gun stopping a home invader, also imagine it shooting your spouse or children.  Just as long as we're clear about that."

If it were possible, I'd mandate anyone seeking to own a firearm AT THE AGE OF 21, could have one, would have to visit a morgue and view the bodies of victims of suicide and homicide due to gun use. Or at least watch an unfiltered documentary in a gun safety class of firearm deaths. When I was in high school taking drivers ed we watched documentaries of car crash victims. These were real cases.

Again, not to shock people into never buying one, but more to serve as a warning that this can happen. Much like we know texting and driving is fucking stupid and driving should be taken seriously.

---

I think far too many people who own firearms dont think about just the speed of the average bullet travels when the pin hits the casing and ignites the gunpowder. 2,500ft per second, or 1,700mph.

So when I hear the hero wannabes talk about "if this happend, I'd"...... I dont see how at that speed one could dodge a bullet if someone already has one aimed at you especially at close range in terms of feet, not yards or hundreds of yards, but in your face, how the math works with "the good guy always wins in response" when the other person already has the drop on you with their firearm and you haven't reached for yours yet.

I don't see the math as being there for the well intended if someone already has a gun aimed at you with the speed the bullet travels. The cases that one successfully uses one are the ones by trained people who have warning going in.

Even in the Vegas Tea party shooter couple, they murdered two armed cops, then walked over to the Wal Mart, well intended armed civilian had the drop on the guy, but walked past the shooters armed girlfriend not knowing she was armed, she killed the guy. So again, good intent isn't enough with a firearm.

[brewer]

Got my hands on a 1919 this weekend. ABBA didn't stand a chance, but neither did the Bee Gees or ELO. I think Toto bit it also, don't hold me to that, they were not in my set.

[Brian37]

Got my hands on a 1919 this weekend. ABBA didn't stand a chance, but neither did the Bee Gees or ELO. I think Toto bit it also, don't hold me to that, they were not in my set.

I bet it is fun to shoot things up so? Is that machine gun a want or a need? Is your aim that bad you cant hit an ABBA cd with a 22 rifle or shotgun or 38? And exactly how does shooting an ABBA CD save lives? I could understand it as a stress release, but again, you could shot things with paint ball guns too. You could hit that same ABBA CD with a 22, unless your aim sucks.

 I am sure you have a practical need for it, like say military service? Nice fold out legs for laying on your stomach, funny thing, never seen an Armor'ed car driver carry one of those. Oh you are a bounty hunter is that it? Nope, never seen a bounty hunter carry one. Oh you need them to shoot deer, bet you cant kill a dear with a 22 or bow and arrow. 

Yea I google imaged 1919, looks like a want and not a necessity. At least when Gawdzilla talks about his he admits they are safer locked up at the gun range and he doesn't need them at home or in public.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Brian: "Didn't you also say in another post that you keep them locked up at a gun range and no longer keep them at home? "

When I couldn't face buying another gun safe I sent the collectible ones to the Smithsonian. They only wanted one of them, the rest were in the "tradeable" collection, to swap with other museums. The last guns I kept at home were in a safe, I donated the other safes to my more sensible relatives. Now that we live near a range we have a safe there. Gun stores don't get robbed too much.

The .50 is long-term loan to a certain state agency that might have to shoot an engine block in half some day. We "fam. fire" it once a year, I get free ammo.

[Thumpalumpacus]

But people aren't allowed to own machine guns or howitzers.

I own a fully functional Browning M2 .05 cal. HMG, and I have a completely legal license for it.

I stand corrected.