skinsmarydu Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) After all, don't all gun owning GOP voters have at least one domestic violence charge? My mom has a CC permit for her .22...and she only struck me once as a teenager...and she got it back. No charges. We're cool now, and because I properly educate her (Mitt can't be POTUS, did you see what he did to his dog?), she knows who scans everything & will give her the truth. Edited March 9, 2016 by skinsmarydu 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 I mean I suspect the ability of that particular firearm to fire hundreds or even thousands of rounds with minimal reloading time has something to do with people's objections. I'm not big on this debate but I think his point is other rifles that don't look the same but with the same firing rate don't come under the same scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 I'm not big on this debate but I think his point is other rifles that don't look the same but with the same firing rate don't come under the same scrutiny. I had to teach this to my wife. I showed her a picture of a AR-15 and a wood stock semi-auto hunting rifle. She said the AR should be banned but the hunting rifle was okay. She was surprised when I explained to her that they were both capable of doing the exact same thing. It's just the look that scares people. I suspect a lot of the population just isn't that informed about guns. That's why some call the assault weapons ban the "scary looking gun" ban. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 But the capabilities of said modified guns were not explained, I'm sure.Or probably the FACT that one is specifically designed for hunting PEOPLE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 I had to teach this to my wife. I showed her a picture of a AR-15 and a wood stock semi-auto hunting rifle. She said the AR should be banned but the hunting rifle was okay. She was surprised when I explained to her that they were both capable of doing the exact same thing. It's just the look that scares people. I suspect a lot of the population just isn't that informed about guns. That's why some call the assault weapons ban the "scary looking gun" ban. Cool story. Total and complete bull****...but cool story. http://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/guns/new-trigger-makes-ar-15s-nearly-full-auto/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 But the capabilities of said modified guns were not explained, I'm sure. Or probably the FACT that one is specifically designed for hunting PEOPLE. Show me the website that says the civilian version is "specifically designed for hunting people". I know people that hunt animals with an AR.  Cool story. Total and complete bull****...but cool story. http://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/guns/new-trigger-makes-ar-15s-nearly-full-auto/ That is not a gun though. That is a modification. It's like adding a super charger to your car. Now if you want to talk about whether or not a certain add on should be allowed, I'm totally open for that discussion. But your out of the box AR will do a lot of the same things that out of the box hunting rifle does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 AR 15 are a necessity when hunting today's "super" animals. The ELECTRIC eel or the FLYING squirrel for example. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Gun rights advocate accidentally shot in the back by her 4-year-old son  A north Florida woman is in the hospital after her 4-year-old son shot her in the back while sitting in the backseat of her pickup truck.  31-year-old Jamie Gilt is a self-described advocate for "gun sense" who posts enthusiastically on social media sites about firearms and protecting her right to bear arms. She appears to be the same Jamie Gilt who was hospitalized yesterday.    A Putnam County Sheriff's Office news release says a deputy saw Gilt behaving frantically inside the truck Tuesday afternoon and quickly realized she'd been shot.  Once she pulled her car over, she told deputies her 4-year-old son, who was sitting in the back of the truck, shot her in the back while she was driving.  The bullet went through the seat and entered her back, before exiting her stomach. Her son wasn't harmed and was reunited with family members. He will remain with family while the Department of Children and Families investigates.  Relatives told investigators Gilt was traveling to a family member's home to pick up a horse when the shooting happened, according to local news outlet First Coast News.  Deputies say a .45-caliber handgun was on the truck's floor. The gun had been purchased legally, the sheriff's department said in second news release Wednesday. It is, however, a misdemeanor in Florida for a person to leave a loaded firearm where a child might access it.    more from link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Kid should be charged with attempted murder.  Seriously, that woman clearly is NOT a responsible gun owner and should face the possibility of losing her child...at the very least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) someone should shoot her   OK, cross that one off  add Caramba! I'd be willing to nurse her back to health Edited March 10, 2016 by twa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) I'm kat NRA expecting for the usual crowd to point out that this is another case of somebody getting shot, in palace where there's not supposed to be guns. And, therefore, 1). This proves that gun laws don't work. 2). That all we have to do, is enforce existing laws. 3). And change the law, so that carrying a loaded gun, with a round in the chamber, and I strongly suspect the hammer back, and the safety off, (is a four year old capable of firing a pistol if the hammer's not back?), in toddler seats, should be legal. Edited March 10, 2016 by Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 yes a four year old can pull a hammer back or work a safety.....or at least my grandkid can  racking a slide is a bit more difficult  which is why they don't have unsupervised access Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 OK, twa. I handled guns early, my dad's family is from *I still can't find my way there* rural NC.  Apparently this child was curious? So....no prior contact with weapons? OK.  And strength notwithstanding... If it's a "thing I'm gonna twist around & turn around & be a kid with"...  SERIOUSLY. COME ON, MAN. IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN LIKE THIS.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 ? Â which is why they don't have unsupervised access 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Can't blame the kid for trying and attempting to take out this danger to society, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 I'm kat NRA expecting for the usual crowd to point out that this is another case of somebody getting shot, in palace where there's not supposed to be guns. And, therefore, 1). This proves that gun laws don't work. 2). That all we have to do, is enforce existing laws. 3). And change the law, so that carrying a loaded gun, with a round in the chamber, and I strongly suspect the hammer back, and the safety off, (is a four year old capable of firing a pistol if the hammer's not back?), in toddler seats, should be legal. One of the favorite arguments of the gun rights crowd is that criminals aren't going to obey the laws anyway only honest, responsible people will.  So, instead of looking at the criminal acts of guns... let's take a peek at the noncriminal acts. In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings.  73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.2 From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.19  Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010, constituting almost 62% of all gun deaths.10  Maybe gun control laws are necessary to protect the non-criminal. If a non-criminal knows that it is illegal to store a loaded rifle with the umbrellas in the closet... maybe the five year old doesn't grab it and shoot his brother. If the non criminal with mental health problems and chronic depression can't get a gun legally maybe he doesn't shoot himself. If trigger locks, safety classes, gun safes, and other common sense measures happen... maybe grandma doesn't get shot in the back while driving.  After all, if the argument that criminals won't obey laws rings true then maybe law abiding people will obey laws. If that happens, unnecessary 50,000 deaths and injuries a year might be prevented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Kid should be charged with attempted murder. Seriously, that woman clearly is NOT a responsible gun owner and should face the possibility of losing her child...at the very least. And her permit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Can't blame the kid for trying and attempting to take out this danger to society, Â she shoulda took preemptive action and terminated the threat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Jamie Gilt, an outspoken advocate for gun rights who even ran a Facebook featuring statements such as, "My right to protect my child with my gun trumps your fear of my gun," was shot by her 4-year-old son this week.    Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Jamie Gilt, an outspoken advocate for gun rights who even ran a Facebook featuring statements such as, "My right to protect my child with my gun trumps your fear of my gun," was shot by her 4-year-old son this week.    Well, so far she's not been proven incorrect. Her child protected himself from her.  Her getting shot is actually not funny, but it is pointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Out of curiosity, would you (democrats for simplicity sake) agree to leave gun control alone if we (republicans for simplicity sake) agreed to leave abortion alone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) I'd rather you leave shoving religion on me alone instead.  But, i'm not for big gun controls as in the spirit of the term, so I guess it doesn't matter. And I'm not a democrat either  ~Bang Edited March 10, 2016 by Bang 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) It wasn't directed at anyone in particular and it wasn't supposed to be anything religious. Just a question I like to ask sometimes. It's just two topics that both sides usually feel strongly about and it's interesting to see where people are willing to give and take.  EDIT: For the record I am an atheist and believe abortion is wrong in most cases. I also accept it isn't my job to impose my morals on you so I consider myself pro-choice. Edited March 10, 2016 by TheGreatBuzz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 I'm much closer to a republican, but I would be thrilled if tomorrow guns weren't legal in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Show me the website that says the civilian version is "specifically designed for hunting people". I know people that hunt animals with an AR.  That is not a gun though. That is a modification. It's like adding a super charger to your car. Now if you want to talk about whether or not a certain add on should be allowed, I'm totally open for that discussion. But your out of the box AR will do a lot of the same things that out of the box hunting rifle does. I think the modifications debate is very valid when it comes to AR-15s. Since they have changeable stocks you can also get a "bump" or "slide" stock, that also essentially converts it into a full auto without having to go through the NFA process.  Speaking of the NFA process, the whole "gun trust" thing is very shady to me and can be a major loophole. If you want an NFA weapon you should have to go through the process personally IMO.  I say all of this being a gun owner (including an AR-15). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts