Bowsite.com

No more AR15's here

I know it's not bow related but this is huge here in MA. I'm posting it here because your state will be sure to follow suit. Sorry Pat for the gun post but I know your feelings on these issues.

Can't buy then here now unless they are preban (as weird as that sounds) or if you are LEO, etc.

Lol. They will just redesign them. Cat and mouse game. Don't lose sleep over it

I have mixed emotions about the type of guns made available to the general public(I am a gun owner and gun hunter). I think if we worked with those people trying to put a reasonable plan together around what kinds of guns we need to hunt, target shoot, skeet, trap, sporting clays, competitive shooting, etc I'm guessing we could come up with some gun designs that meet our needs as well as satisfy SOME of the anti gun people.

Buckiller touched upon - redesigns can be made to make them less scary looking and still give the gun community what we're looking for.

Example: semi-auto for hunting. How about if we did something like - tell the gun mfg they need to have a trigger mechanism developed for all rifles that allows just one trigger pull each 3 seconds, about the time you need to re-aim if you're shooting a big game animal so nothing is lost for the hunting experience. Then they can't show a video of someone yanking the trigger as fast as they can scaring the hell out of everyone and calling it an automatic rifle.

What do you think?

No disrespect intended to you BBB, but I'm done compromising... I'm no longer interested in hearing anything the anti gunners have to say. NO single gun owner I know wants to see the havoc & destruction of these attacks.

All of their efforts have just made it harder on law abiding citizens... and many of them can't even articulate the difference between semi auto and full auto - they just picture us wanting to be Rambos.

I'm tired of being assumed that I have "issues" since I enjoy target shooting, skeet, field clays, and hunting (gun as well as bow). My AR is flexible enough that my girlfriend who is 9" shorter than me can shoot it comfortably (and she's damn accurate too). It's also less expensive than any of my other rifles (and most handguns) to shoot. Don't know why I shouldn't be able to continue to enjoy that right as long as I do so within the laws and do it responsibly.

Better enforcement of existing laws & a stiffer penalty when a gun is used in a crime, and better detection and treatment of mental illness is where it's at in my opinion. And - teaching people at an early age that there ARE repercussions for bad actions might cut down on these fools that act out for attention or because they were bullied, or whatever other excuse they want to throw out.

Just my 0.02

Good points guys. I just read that our new Republican Governor is all for this. Big mistake Charlie Baker.

If you ignore the shooter (which is what the anti-gun folks do). The issue is not the type of gun it is the capacity and its ability to shoot a lot of rounds fast. If compromise was to be made it should only have to do with magazine capacity. The idea of teaching repercussions to these mass murderers does not work. They are not worried about repercussions they are going there knowing full well they are going to die in the end. Other penalties don't matter. Mental health care is the right answer but it costs a great deal of money and identifying those needing it is difficult. Realistically it is a pipe dream to think that we will fund an expansion of mental healthcare and be able to identify and force those needing it to get help. I think that unfortunately BBB is right that finding a mutually agreeable compromise is the only answer. If we take a hard line no compromise stance I fear that we will have the entire anti-gun agenda rammed down our throats. Just my 2 cents. FWIW

Another reason I'm no longer compromising.. Antis cannot be trusted.

http://www.guns.com/2016/07/19/new-county-clerk-finds-20000-unprocessed-ny-safe-act-opt-out-forms/

I fully agree about the radical anti-gun people wanting to eliminate ALL guns, regardless of how they are to be used. But I have to believe that MOST people are just looking for the gun community to have some kind of logical dialogue about what improvements can be made. I would rather participate in the decision process so I can protect my interests than leave it up to the politicians.

Mental health - just try and get someone the help they need! I have personal experience with a family member needing help due to a sexual assault and she's been bounced around the system for years. It tears you heart out.

Guns are like drugs - if you make them illegal it won't stop the criminals and addicts from getting them, selling them and using them for illegal purposes. I also agree we have enough laws on the books to enforce already and passing laws that infringe on the law abiding citizens rights is not the answer.

The world is going upside down. Criminals use guns and the law abiding citizens are the ones who are punished. A man says he's a woman, and he gets to go in the ladies bathroom with my daughter. Religious based organizations are forced to do things against their beliefs. The government is in the insurance business.

I'm glad I'm old at times like this:)

The right for citizens of this country to bear arms is not at all for the purpose of hunting or target shooting. I know it was written a long time ago, but the reasoning for it holds true to this day more than ever. Any compromise is never enough for the progressive antis until they see to it that we cannot legally possess any firearms at all. Stand up for our right to bear arms or risk losing all our rights.

Substitute for a moment the 1st amendment right to free speech in that argument. It might go something like this:

"If we just keep the kind of free expression that we need to talk about sports, and gossip about celebrities and take out some of the scary political talk, some more of the bad people will stop trying to kill us".

or

Why not allow warrantless searches if the cop thinks he might find something?

How about: You have the right to worship the religion of your choice, as long as it's one the government approves of.

Good Lord! Isn't it plain that the Founding Fathers wrote into the Bill of Rights about the God given guarantee of our right to keep and bear arms to insure that if future Americans had to do what they had just done, they would have the means to do so?

I'm surprised that some are so quick to offer to give up fundamental rights.

It doesn't really matter if the average citizen isn't thinking about eliminating all guns, their chosen leaders are working towards just that.

And that democratic voter has bought into the fact that those who cling to their guns are potentially dangerous. So who do you think they are going to follow? Do you honestly think that your neighbors are going to say: "Oh Bob is a good guy, leave him and his guns alone". No, they are going to keep voting for the Antigun left, who is going to pass laws that take away your right to give your guns to your sons without their permission (done!) (and of course, now they are on the list). And they are going to pass more laws, make AR platform rifles illegal (done!) despite the fact that they are the most popular style of rifle sold in America and have been for years. And they are going to forbid you from buying ammo with a permit (done!). And say no magazines over 10 rounds capacity (done!). And no firearm purchase of any sort with the permission of the government (done!).

Bob, be sure to apply for a permit to be able to freely speak your mind, and to be able to go to Church this Sunday. And then all you'll have to do (after volunteering your fingerprints and paying a fee and waiting for several weeks), is do an "instant check" just before Sunday Service to make sure you haven't become a prohibited person since the Sunday.

Griz is absolutely correct. The SOLE purpose of the 2nd Amendment as far as I am concerned is about the ability to protect ourselves from enemies, both foreign and domestic. To allow us to fight a tyrannical overbearing gov't, if needed, just as our founding fathers did. If we allow this tyrannical gov't to take away our means of leveling the battlefield, than there is no ability to fight. Your 12 GA shotgun with 3 round limited magazine will allow you to live about 3 minutes.

Bob I agree with your thoughts on this. Speaking solely for me, I have no malice whatsoever behind my desire to continue owning and using firearms. My sole purpose is shooting animals to eat or shooting targets for fun. That's all I want to do with a gun.

It really feels like some level of reasonable communication needs to occur between those for and against gun ownership. The more polarized things get, the more defensive and angry the "sides" become and the outcome is going to end up bad for all of us. In that scenario, all debate seems to go the route of "it's my ball and I'm taking it away nah nah ne bo bo".

The whole situation stinks. It's really frustrating.

Bob, Will, Jerry, which other constitutionally guaranteed rights are you willing to sacrifice so you don't offend people?

"My sole purpose is shooting animals to eat or shooting targets for fun. That's all I want to do with a gun. "

I sure hope nobody breaks into your house while your family is home, because they're going to be pretty disappointed that you didn't have the stones to use the most appropriate tool for the job at hand. Maybe you can negotiate with the poor misunderstood fellow.

Ace,

It's a good point. That's why this is not an "easy" black and white debate. It feels like it should be. Constitution says X, so Y is the result. The world isn't that black and white though. I dont know the answer. That said, my belief is that the better answer is to use a stout screening. It's a pain in the butt for those of us like you and I who want to own guns for legal purposes, but, ultimately, it has zero impact on our ability to own or use weapons and just may (MAY) reduce the crazy people's odds of having a weapon. I'm fine with that. Others are not. All cool. That's why I would love to see it become something that can be debated and discussed positively - like we are here - so that a good outcome can come about for everyone.

As for the "home intruder"...

I live in MA, so if some one breaks into my house I have to remove my trigger locked gun from the locked case. Oh, and it cant have ammo in it so I have to unlock that from the separate locked case. then I can load the gun. Oh, and I have to warn the guy that I'm going to shoot him - if he hasnt killed us already, and if I shoot him near the exit I go to jail and his family probably ends up with my house or all the $ from it's sale to pay off the law suit (and then some).

So, in the scenario you noted, I'm better off with a club or my bow even than a gun.

Now, THAT, is a lot more messed up than not being able to own a AR as an example.

All of right have limits and regulations.

Religion can't allow human sacrifice. Speech doesn't allow you yell fire in a crowded theater.

I'm not advocating giving up ANY guns. I'm asking if we want to be part of the process to manage how guns are manufactured to suit our needs while providing some level of comfort to those who fear guns.

I understand and agree 100% that all of this means nothing to the criminal element, so it only impacts us law abiding citizens.

Easy Ace don't think you know much about me or my "stones". An AR would not be my choice for home protection. Fear not for my family I have that adequately covered. I never suggested a platform ban. What I said was "The issue is not the type of gun it is the capacity and its ability to shoot a lot of rounds fast. If compromise was to be made it should only have to do with magazine capacity." Not much sense in debating with you. Everybody has an opinion. You have yours and now you know mine.

Infringe = act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

"shall not be infringed" = 2nd ammendment

That's black and white as I see it. Same language we speak today with the same principles involved.

Subtlety(compromise) has been in use since the garden of Eden. "Ye shall not surly die" - Satan

"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 14:12

Jerry I wasn't referring to you when I indicated that protecting ones family is a very valid reason to own firearms. It was Will who said he only wanted Firearms to hunt and target shoot. He clearly stated that's his sole purpose of having a gun.

He and Bob seem willing to "compromise" on firearms for protection, you on Magazines. I'll fight for all of us to maintain all of our legal uses for firearms, even ones I don't exercise.

What's the REAL common denominator in mass shootings? Mental health. Why aren't these misguided lawmakers attacking the mental health issues? Because that's hard to do. Instead, they come after people's Constituitionally guarenteed rights.

No compromise on 2nd amendment. Period. Anyone who thinks the antis will compromise or play fair with "reasonable restrictions" to gun rights is a fool. Don't sell out; if you don't like or don't care about black guns guess what? They'll be back to take your shotguns next.

"But I have to believe that MOST people are just looking for the gun community to have some kind of logical dialogue"

That belief is your first mistake. There is no logic when dealing with liberal...progressives of any kind.

Once we begin caving/compromising on various issues, whether design/appearance or magazine size, the road to confiscation, collection and destruction is a short walk away (Australia). I personally don't own an AR but I certainly wouldn't impose my preferences on anyone else. I have shot them extensively in the service and appreciate their capabilities. I simply resent the suggestion that "logical accommodation" by the law abiding gun owner is a solution to the illogical behavior of a few mentally deranged individuals who in most cases could care less about the weapon they choose to wreak havoc on the defenseless. The liberal left shamefully exploits these horrible events to further their belief that the average citizen needs governmental intrusion in every aspect of their life to exist. Historically, gun ownership is viewed as an obstacle to the excesses of government. The common thread to these senseless shootings is certainly related to the mental instability of the shooter, and is promoted I believe by the fact that non-responsive, soft targets provide an advantageous window of opportunity regardless of the fact that a police bullet might be the ultimate outcome. Accommodation is not the answer, enforcement and respect for the law is.

3 times as many people die in bicycle accidents or are murdered by blunt objects than are killed by all assault rifles and any other rifle combined.

Eliminate all murders by an AR-15 and the homicide rate will not budge a fraction.

I agree with Grizz and Gregg, the constitution was not intended for hunting, target shooting, competitive shooting, etc. It was created to ensure the citizens were not at a disadvantage from threats foreign and domestic. The times and equipment may change, but the principle is the same.

The right of the people to stalk and hunt deer will not be infringed ? They could have written that if they wanted to include hunting.

Some say 2A should limit us to muskets right ? The first amendment does not limit freedom freedom of expression to an ink and quill right ?

Simple baseline application - "If the police can have it he citizenry can have it" IMHOO

The fact is when the Second Ammendment was written, all guns owned by Citizens were military grade weapons of war, and the founding fathers intended all citizens to continue to own every terrible implement of battle that the countries standing army had. Today this has been radically neutered allready, by the logic some people have that the militia and the army are seperate and supposed to be unequal. That was not how it is supposed to work. The 2nd allready has been severely limited, and the cries for "common sense gun laws" number in the thousands of laws allready on the books. The last 35 years of owning guns and being an NRA member have taught me several things about the political arena, Democrats will never stop chipping away at the citizenry's right to bear arms, never. In 1986 it was outlawed that no new manufacture of machine guns to civilians. 1994 so called assault weapons were banned, along with high capacity magazines, neither of these laws made a difference in crime or crimminals. If or When the day comes that I need to fight with a firearm I will have 20 and 30 round magazines, and I hope my kids and Grandkids will fight the logic that dictates I don't "NEED" them.

X2 Pat as well as I'd rather be shot then have a broadhead go through me. When the wife says do you really need your AR, I say maybe not but the government doesn't Need to tell me I can't own one.

Register here to reply to this topic