Prosperity Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 It's sad and really disgusting frankly that a civilized country like ourselves there are apparently a large group of people who's only concern appears to be guns. What century are we in?I mean really, this is THE issue that they are concerned about? Pathetic. No surprise that with this low level of people an exposed moron like Palin is their darling. Idle minds. Hey folks here's an idea, put down that 12th uzi you bought last week and read a book. And no the biographies of Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck or anything written by Ann Colter count. Probably something to do w/ rural urban divide Americans in rural areas necessarily have to rely on their own means more than the government. I call the police in SF, CA they'll arrive on scene w/in minutes. If I called the police in Alaska (not in Anchorage) how long would it take? Hours? Small differences like that add up to a big difference in mind set/culture. A gun is power, and power is required for independence. In an urban center the government can competently provide services at the cost of independence w/o huge logistical issues. Urban populations thus don't care as much about guns because urban life necessarily requires giving up independence for interdependence. It makes sense to me why we have such divergent views on this issue of course, it's also really fun to shoot guns, that probably plays a role as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Let's assume you're right. (are 10-round clips legal? I thought the max was six.) The reason why a responsible, law-abiding citizen should be prohibited from choosing to be prepared for the other .1% is . . . ? I will give you credit, you constantly stand up for Constitutional Rights regardless of the topic, where others including myself have many subjects where we use only our opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 In case you're attacked by more than one person.---------- Post added January-31st-2011 at 12:39 PM ---------- Let's pretend you're right. So? Funny I always hear how America is Christian country and yet there seems to be a preoccupation with harming one's neighbour. ---------- Post added January-31st-2011 at 02:07 PM ---------- I will give you credit, you constantly stand up for Constitutional Rights regardless of the topic, where others including myself have many subjects where we use only our opinion. Do you really think the people who wrote the constitution want it to be worshipped so much? Do you think they would not have ammended it had they been alive to see what was happening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 The reason why a responsible, law-abiding citizen should be prohibited from choosing to be prepared for the other .1% is . . . ? The same reason why a responsible, law-abiding citizen should be prohibited from owning certain other, highly-dangerous weapons (e.g., M-2 Browning machine guns, RPGs, etc.). You weigh the pros and cons of allowing people to own high-capacity magazines. I suppose a person might need a high-capacity magazine to fend off a hoarde of well-armed and persistent attackers, the UN, or the US military. However, I imagine that it's far more likely that high-capacity magazines will be used for the wrong reasons by the wrong people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 The same reason why a responsible, law-abiding citizen should be prohibited from owning certain other, highly-dangerous weapons (e.g., M-2 Browning machine guns, RPGs, etc.). You weigh the pros and cons of allowing people to own high-capacity magazines. I suppose a person might need a high-capacity magazine to fend off a hoarde of well-armed and persistent attackers, the UN, or the US military. However, I imagine that it's far more likely that high-capacity magazines will be used for the wrong reasons by the wrong people. You can't answer his question can you? So the only 2 people in the entire country that own high capacity clips were the lunatic from Tucson and the VA Tech shooter? What percentage of legally purchased high capacity clips will be used by law abiding citizens to commit a crime in the future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 My father (and I to a lesser degree) led an effort for the Jim Webb campaign called "sportsmen for webb." We basically went around to gun shows, set up a booth, and talked to people about how Webb didn't want to take away your hunting rifle or your pistol, or really much of anything else. We also talked about how the real danger to hunters was environmental problems, and the reduction of open space for hunting. Nobody wanted to hear it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 The fact that this woman is still in the news and not only are people still listening to anything she says, but taking her more serious, is sad and says a lot about our nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 You can't answer his question can you? So the only 2 people in the entire country that own high capacity clips were the lunatic from Tucson and the VA Tech shooter? What percentage of legally purchased high capacity clips will be used by law abiding citizens to commit a crime in the future? I think the question is, for me at least, around the second part of your statement / question. The "law abiding" part. How do we know if someone is law abiding or of stable mind? I personally don't have a problem with someone owning a gun, high capacity magazine, assault rifle, tank, or Cobra helicopter so long as there is some process around investigating who they are. Trust, but verify Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 My father (and I to a lesser degree) led an effort for the Jim Webb campaign called "sportsmen for webb." We basically went around to gun shows, set up a booth, and talked to people about how Webb didn't want to take away your hunting rifle or your pistol, or really much of anything else. We also talked about how the real danger to hunters was environmental problems, and the reduction of open space for hunting. Nobody wanted to hear it. Maybe they have friends that enjoy unloading multiple high capacity clips on a target? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Maybe they have friends that enjoy unloading multiple high capacity clips on a target? Sounds reasonable. What's your point? http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/James_Webb_Gun_Control.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I suppose a person might need a high-capacity magazine to fend off a hoarde of well-armed and persistent attackers, the UN, or the US military. In a typical, real-world, combat situation, between civilians, no less, what to you suppose if the ratio between "shots fired" and "targets hit"? I have no idea, myself, but 5-1 wouldn't surprise me. 10-1 wouldn't surprise me. If we assume 10-1, then the 10-round clip you want to limit people to would allow them to defend themselves from one attacker. I assert that the person who asks "What if there's two of them?" isn't planning on trying to fight off the US military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cept One Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Do any of you really think limiting the capacity of magazines will reduce or prevent crimes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Sounds reasonable. What's your point?http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/James_Webb_Gun_Control.htm I'm 99.999 percent sure they absolutely cared about land being destroyed, they just didn't feel like hearing it when most gun/sportsman shows last 1 to 2 days event at most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I'm 99.999 percent sure they absolutely cared about land being destroyed, they just didn't feel like hearing it when most gun/sportsman shows last 1 to 2 days event at most. Nope. Everyone who stayed and talked to us, didn't want to talk about environmental issues. Even when we talked about how Webb would vote on gun issues, they still didn't want to hear it. A democrat is a democrat, is mostly what we'd hear. I can assure you that it wasn't a case of people not having time - plenty took the time, besides, I'm talking about the people who wanted to chat, not those that didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 It's sad and really disgusting frankly that a civilized country like ourselves there are apparently a large group of people who's only concern appears to be guns. What century are we in?I mean really, this is THE issue that they are concerned about? Pathetic. No surprise that with this low level of people an exposed moron like Palin is their darling. Idle minds. Hey folks here's an idea, put down that 12th uzi you bought last week and read a book. And no the biographies of Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck or anything written by Ann Colter count. Condescend much? Let's spin this another way:It's sad and really disgusting frankly that a civilized country like ourselves there are apparently a large group of people who's only concern appears to be words. What century are we in?I mean really, this is THE issue that they are concerned about? Pathetic. No surprise that with this high level of people an exposed moron like Palin is their anti-christ. Idle minds. Hey folks here's an idea, put down that 120th book you bought last week and go outside. And no, PS3 or Wii don't count. Everyone is willing to defend every Constitutionally granted right, EXCEPT the 2nd Amendment. Why is it that freedom of speech, religion, the press, assemble....are worthy of defending, and necessary for a free society, yet freedom to arm oneself is such a controversial one?---------- Post added January-31st-2011 at 04:03 PM ---------- I think the question is, for me at least, around the second part of your statement / question. The "law abiding" part. How do we know if someone is law abiding or of stable mind? I personally don't have a problem with someone owning a gun, high capacity magazine, assault rifle, tank, or Cobra helicopter so long as there is some process around investigating who they are. Trust, but verify Do they verify whether you are free to inflame with speech? Or if you are qualified to author work worthy of being published? Or issue blogging permits? Why is it that much more important to censor gun ownership than it is to censor writing/speech? You never see the Chinese in trouble for taking away guns. Lock up a poet? World outcry. Why? Because the spoken and written word is so much more powerful. Guns can kill a few soldiers. Words can flame a revolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Do any of you really think limiting the capacity of magazines will reduce or prevent crimes? Prevent crime? No, but would it have prevented a mass shooting like the one we saw in Arizona....yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Do any of you really think limiting the capacity of magazines will reduce or prevent crimes? Yep Take a gun and make it a single shot then needing a reload will cut down on gun crime. For one you will not have these people thinking about making maximum damage they will think they will get one shot then tackled. Next the gangs these so caleld tough guys who hide behind their guns if they had reload and take the chance of getting hit or people getting close they lose some of their toughness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Prevent crime? No, but would it have prevented a mass shooting like the one we saw in Arizona....yes.It would? If the Arizona shooter had simple, 9 round magazines, he would have been prevented from doing the shooting? No, he would have simply had more magazines. Yep Take a gun and make it a single shot then needing a reload will cut down on gun crime. For one you will not have these people thinking about making maximum damage they will think they will get one shot then tackled. Next the gangs these so called tough guys who hide behind their guns if they had reload and take the chance of getting hit or people getting close they lose some of their toughness No they don't. Look at Mexico. The gang cartels preferred manner of murder is beheading. You going to legislate away knives to prevent that? Additionally, there is this little piece of paper called the Constitution that prevents the Fed Govt from limiting my arms to a single shot musket.EDIT: You are also asking the Fed Govt to mandate what a private manufacturer can make. No gun out there is a single shot weapon, with the exception of bolt action rifles with no reservoir. All handguns have at least 6 rounds. Semi-automatic handguns hold 9 (10 if you chamber 1). Rifles hold anywhere from 5-15 rounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cept One Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Prevent crime? No, but would it have prevented a mass shooting like the one we saw in Arizona....yes. please explain to me how? According to the ATF the 94 assault weapons ban had no effect on crime rates and had no effect on the number of victims in tragedies like Arizona. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Do they verify whether you are free to inflame with speech? Or if you are qualified to author work worthy of being published? Or issue blogging permits? Why is it that much more important to censor gun ownership than it is to censor writing/speech? You never see the Chinese in trouble for taking away guns. Lock up a poet? World outcry. Why? Because the spoken and written word is so much more powerful. Guns can kill a few soldiers. Words can flame a revolution. Yes. It is not legal to yell fire in a crowded movie theater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Yes. It is not legal to yell fire in a crowded movie theater.Is that a serious response? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 It would? If the Arizona shooter had simple, 9 round magazines, he would have been prevented from doing the shooting? No, he would have simply had more magazines. No they don't. Look at Mexico. The gang cartels preferred manner of murder is beheading. You going to legislate away knives to prevent that? Additionally, there is this little piece of paper called the Constitution that prevents the Fed Govt from limiting my arms to a single shot musket. EDIT: You are also asking the Fed Govt to mandate what a private manufacturer can make. No gun out there is a single shot weapon, with the exception of bolt action rifles with no reservoir. All handguns have at least 6 rounds. Semi-automatic handguns hold 9 (10 if you chamber 1). Rifles hold anywhere from 5-15 rounds. Um then explain why Mexico is upset about guns coming in from the states? Who hunts with handgun or six shooter? Seems to me this is weapon meant to harm others. Sorry could you point out this line that says the government shall not limit the number of bullets there are in a gun? ---------- Post added January-31st-2011 at 05:09 PM ---------- Is that a serious response? The Supreme Court thought so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 The only people that would use them to kill, were or are going to kill regardless of gun laws and how many bullets a clip can hold. Guess when the whacko in Arizona was taken down? When he stopped to reload. Since, according to you, gun laws are totally ineffective in preventing gun-related murders, why don't we get rid of all gun laws? For example, do you think it would be a good idea to get rid of the laws prohibiting felons to buy guns? After all, they're going to get guns and commit murders with guns regardless of what the laws say, right? In any case, since many conservatives believe in interpreting the Constitution in the same way the Founding Fathers did, I think it's high time that we did so with respect to the 2nd Amendment. Want to buy an "arm?" Sure, you can, as long as it was an "arm" available in the late 18th century. Muskets are cool. If people want to protect the right to bear other firearms, they should take it up with Congress to amend the Constitution expressly authorize the possession of such firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Um then explain why Mexico is upset about guns coming in from the states?Who hunts with handgun or six shooter? Seems to me this is weapon meant to harm others. Sorry could you point out this line that says the government shall not limit the number of bullets there are in a gun? WOW. So, if something was "designed" to hurt someone, it should be regulated by the government. Again, when the govt starts regulating blogs they can start regulating ammunition.The Supreme Court thought soIt is illegal to walk into a crowded theater and yell fire. :doh::doh::doh::doh: I know that. We already have laws on the books that prevent one from walking into anywhere and opening fire. We have laws on:-Assault with a deadly weapon -Using a firearm in the commission of a felony -Murder -I could go on, and on, and on..... The word fire is not illegal. The use of the word fire, in the context of a crowded room is what makes it illegal. Just as the use of bullets in the context of shooting innocent people is ALREADY ILLEGAL. But please, lets pass MORE laws that restrict the use of guns by law abiding citizens while doing NOTHING to address the use of guns by criminals. Please, continue. And please, please reference Bowling for Columbine in response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Is that a serious response? Indeed. Its a simple example that illustrates restrictions on "rights" that are guaranteed by the US Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.