So is the US Capitol, but someone brought one in a few years ago and took out a couple of Capitol Policemen.

Seton Hall is also a private school.

Some of you guys seem excessively paranoid, or lost in some fantasy of being the hero fighting to the death against the U.S. government gone crazy. I'll buy the argument of defending your home and family against criminals with guns; that's at least within the realm of reality. Any scenario where you and your heroic armed neighbors are holding off the Marines who are wrongly trying to conquer Anytown USA is off the scale. Not a little either...a lot.

Again, understand that I'm not anti-gun, I'm more anti-nut who would use a gun to settle some perceived wrong. I just don't know how you stop that. Oh yeah, more guns. :rolleyes:

WOLVERINES!

I don't think anyone is paranoid. I also don't think things like battles between the military and civilians would occur.

If guns were ever outlawed, who would be the ones to go around collecting them? It would be the local police departments.

Mayor "Chocolate City" Nagin did it to people in New Orleans a little over two years ago.

Quote:

Again, understand that I'm not anti-gun, I'm more anti-nut who would use a gun to settle some perceived wrong. I just don't know how you stop that. Oh yeah, more guns. :rolleyes:

You're not anti-gun. Who would have known.

I don't think anyone here has a "Hero" complex, but as the government slowly erodes our rights. Our rights to free speech (which by the way you defend vehemently), our rights to bear arms etc., many do get worried that the path to a "tyrannical" governement or police state is right around the corner. Maybe not in our life time, but maybe our childrens, or theirs? Shouldn't we make sure that doesn't happen? Is it truly far fetched to believe that it is not a possibility?

Good to hear, but you let politicians legislate ownership, and this year it might be hi-cap mags, then next year caliber type, then next year CCW laws etc.. We can't let that happen. Freedom of speech is easier to uphold when the public can arm themselves.

It is completely off the scale, but only because you believe that if something like that truly happened, the people of this country would be pitched against the entire might of the military. Like I said in a previous post. What makes up the military? Who operates the war machine? In most cases family will not fight family, but will fight alongside family. Is it a long shot? Sure it is, and I hate to use the analogy but we never thought someone would fly multiple passenger planes into our buildings either. Never say never, especially when history tells us differently.

While I agree that settling anything with violence is not the right answer, you seem to be lumping those of us that believe in upholding our SA rights with those that partake in criminal activity? We are lumped in with "nuts" because we believe in the ability to protect ourselves and families. If guns were outlawed from the get go, we'd probably be having this discussion about swords or knives. The Feudal Japanese outlawed swords when firearms didn't exist, look at history and see how well that worked out for the Japanese people during that time.

The "nuts" are a product of a much bigger social issue that is beyond the whole firearms debate anyway in my opinion. Taking means of protection away from the people will not alleviate that issue and history and the statistics prove it.

I'm a idealist/realist about this.

First of all, leave the 2nd Amendment out of the discussion because it can be interpreted either way, as granting gun ownership only to members of a state's "well-regulated militia" or to the general public. We can argue that till Doomsday and never resolve it.

Do I believe that a gun-free society - IF it could be achieved - would have less people killed as a result of crime? Well, obviously so because guns are far more efficient at killing people than other personal weapons. The nut at Virginia Tech for example would not have been able to kill near that many people without guns. That's the "idealist" part of my view - but notice I said if it could be achieved - which it can't, so on to the "realist".

Accepting that guns are going to be in society, the next step is to ensure as much as is reasonably possible that people who possess guns are stable, responsible individuals who have been trained to handle a weapon. I support CCW with the same caveat although in reality, at some point there will be tragic accidents. For example, responding officers will someday shoot a good samaritan who has drawn their licensed weapon. It's unavoidable.

The assault weapon question is a good example of where things get murky. There are many people who can responsibly handle such weapons and could blast the living s*** out of practice targets to their heart's desire for all I care. But many people wonder why John Q. Public needs a weapon designed and intended for military use against enemy combatants (i.e. human targets). And you know what? He doesn't need it, he wants it. So how do you balance that want vs. the potential for those intending harm to obtain such weapons? That's a legitimate question.

And here's one for you gun enthusiasts - what about items like so-called flechette shotgun rounds that fire darts? One website says they're to "take out snipers hiding in thick brush or trees" and another advertisement says they're designed for "maximum trauma effect". Snipers in the trees, now there's a scenario we can all expect to encounter.

IMO this is an example where even real gun lovers should draw the line. There's no question such rounds should be illegal. Make a case for them if you can, I'd be interested in contrasting views. (BTW, "contrasting view" does not mean calling those who disagree with you America-hating, Jane Fonda-hugging pinko hippie commie Al-Qaeda Bin Laden-lovers. It means making logical statements explaining why anyone would ever have a legitimate use for such ammunition.)

As a whole, it's a complex issue, but depending on the agenda they subscribe to, people see it in black-and-white, absolute terms. That's the big challenge. What's needed is reasonable discussion and reasonable compromise.

True, but since it's the only written document allowing us our freedom, it's very relevant.

That nut at Virginia Tech could just as easily have driven a car through the quad, or thrown a couple pipe bombs into class rooms. That's the realist in me. I'd rather get shot to be honest.

I agree about the training whether you carry or not and let's throw basic first aid and cpr in there as well. Responding cops are already shooting and tasing people without warrant and there are very little statistics to back up your statement about "good samaritans" being shot by police at the scenes of crime.

Define an assault weapon for me Blue? Is it the semi-auto .22 I own that has a 12 round mag? Or is it the semi-auto bernelli shotgun I own and hunt with? I can do a lot of damage with a semi-auto 12 gauge. It's for hunting though? Let's look at the DC Sniper Case. The guy used an "assault" rifle, but in each case, he only fired one shot! I can do that with my .0306 hunting rifle. Why does and AR-15 have to be banned, because it "looks" more bad ass than my .22 semi-auto? I can get 100 round drums for the .22?

Many forms of ammo are already banned. You can't own armor piercing ammo for instance. Flechette ammo was tried by various militarys etc. and found to be extremely in-efficient and nobody uses them. They are snake oil, and that is way they are probably legal to purchase. I'll take full metal jacketed, hollow points, and wad-cutters myself. Once again though, you let politicians start legislating it, and they will slowly erode your rights.

It's very easy. Don't ban firearms, you must have a special licence to own fully automatic or burst weapons, as they are the true assault weapons and you must go through training to own, operate, or CCW. Most states already have those laws though.

I'm thinking along the same lines as Samuel here.

You don't know what an assault weapon is... do you? You don't know anything about the current laws in existence do you?

No, nothing at all. :rolleyes:

Certainly not enough to meet your standards I'm sure.

Actually, we can resolve it. The 2nd Amendment is vital to gun ownership in this country. A central reasoning for it. It is very clear what a "well-regulated militia" is.

"The Constitution states that all power is inherent in the people, that they may exercise it by themselves, and that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; no man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson

A true assault weapon is a switchable semi, burst and full auto weapon. NOT a semi auto that happens to look like a military rifle. All these ignorant anti gunners out there that want to throw all semi's in the same pile as assault weapons is irresponsible.
It's all an excuse for total gun control and banning.
I have a Ruger Mini-14 SEMI AUTO CARBINE! Not an assault weapon.

This is true. As has been said many times, the assault weapons ban (that I think is currently defunct, but many want to bring back) amounts to nothing more than a ban on scary looking guns.