Simple SOLUTION to gun control

[logical4u]

I love my guns and want to keep them. I also support sensible gun laws.

People who love and want guns know there are already sensible laws on the books which are not enforced.

You really do not fool anyone when you talk of gun rights support then immediately cast out ideals diametric to the preservation of that natural right.

Just like Obama.

lol owning a gun is not a natural right.

Protecting yourself is! Now should we argue about which tools to use?

 

[Peach]

Do you have to justify your speech?

In certain locations, at certain times YES, you DO.

Do you have to justify your right to avoid self incrimination?

No, but try and believe a jury DOESN'T hold it against you.

Do you have to justify ANY of the rights you hold precious and have guaranteed under the Bill of Rights? Should you?

Again, at times yes, the right to assemble peacefully CAN be regulated, for example.


Why note make a VALID point? No gun laws will ever stop those who desire to commit atrocities from doing so. See McVeigh, Wuonos, Bundy, Williams, et. al.

 

[P@triot]

What do gun folks use those assault and semi-auto weapons for? Do you hunt with them?

Are any guns off-limits for regular folk? How about an uzi (is that even a gun)? lol

Just curious.

As a matter of fact, I have a close friend with an Uzi. What exactly is the problem with that? He uses it for fun at the shooting range, I personally would use it for defense. Either way - what difference does it make and why is it any of your business? Also, why does the idiot liberal feel the need to bringing up "hunting" with every anti-second amendment rant?

The 2nd Amendment does not say the right to bear single shot rifles for hunting. It says the right to bear arms....

 

[logical4u]

Sorry, but that's the dumbest "solution" I've seen anyone come up with...and that's saying a lot.

I love my guns and want to keep them. I also support sensible gun laws.

So explain what sensible gun laws need to be passed. Ohh and make sure they do not violate my second amendment rights or my supposed right to privacy.

I like the idea to limit magazine/clip size. Your thoughts?

If I want to be able to shoot a bunch of bullets, then you should not be telling me "how" I can shoot them. How about if we limit gas tanks in vehicles to two gallons, that way cars would not be "as" dangerous?

 

[Peach]

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban - ABC News

How many assualt weapons do you own?

I think we need to include assault knives, assault clubs and baseball bats, assault automobiles, etc. They only become "assault weapons" when they are used to assault someone. Otherwise, they are legally owned firearms. Well, until some feel-good asshole pol decides to make some weird kind of brownie points with his/her base by banning so-called assault weapons...

Don't people die every year from drugs, should we ban all the "strong", "addictive" drugs, so no more people die from drugs?

Big Pharma is making massive amounts of money, a small amount is spent on warning people not to abuse those drugs that will make them "wonderful". Cheap trick.

 

[logical4u]

We don't need to ban any guns - we just need to raise the price of bullets. Chris Rock had it just about right.

So the 99% can't afford them, and the wealthy with bodyguards (and criminals) can?

 

[Charles_Main]

Sorry, but that's the dumbest "solution" I've seen anyone come up with...and that's saying a lot.

I love my guns and want to keep them. I also support sensible gun laws.

So explain what sensible gun laws need to be passed. Ohh and make sure they do not violate my second amendment rights or my supposed right to privacy.

The Second Amendment says you have the right to bare Arms, not specifically you have the right to bare all Types of Firearms and Weapons. There is clearly some Wiggle room on what we can own, At least with out a Proper Permit or License.

I am extremely Pro Gun Mind you. Not going to say how many or what I own but they are all fully legal. So don't go calling me a "gun Grabber" when I say this. I am sure you have heard the saying. The Constitution is not a suicide pact? If we use your Extreme Interpretation of the 2nd, Then the government would have no power what so ever to control fire arms at all. People could buy a used Tank from some former Soviet Republic and claim it as their Right. the Government could not even limit ownership if you have a Record, or Mental Illness by your Standard. That is insane. Clearly there must be some control, a Balance between our Rights, and Public Safety.

After all the Government is Charged with Defending Both.

 

[Darkwind]

All you gun grabbers that are upset by the fact the 2nd Amendment protects our right to own weapons... simple solution.

Since no law that bans semi automatics will survive a court challenge and since no law banning magazine sizes will either, go for what you REALLY want.

Ask for an amendment to repel the 2nd. Or are you afraid that admitting your goal is the elimination of all firearms will not pass muster with the citizenry?

Simple solution to gun control?

Target practice.......three times a week.

 

[Charles_Main]

We don't need to ban any guns - we just need to raise the price of bullets. Chris Rock had it just about right.

So the 99% can't afford them, and the wealthy with bodyguards (and criminals) can?

yep and the next time we find our selves in a shooting war it will cost 55 bucks every time a Soldier Fires his Weapon. LOL

 

[logical4u]

Sorry, but that's the dumbest "solution" I've seen anyone come up with...and that's saying a lot.

I love my guns and want to keep them. I also support sensible gun laws.

So explain what sensible gun laws need to be passed. Ohh and make sure they do not violate my second amendment rights or my supposed right to privacy.

The Second Amendment says you have the right to bare Arms, not specifically you have the right to bare all Types of Firearms and Weapons. There is clearly some Wiggle room on what we can own, At least with out a Proper Permit or License.

I am extremely Pro Gun Mind you. Not going to say how many or what I own but they are all fully legal. So don't go calling me a "gun Grabber" when I say this. I am sure you have heard the saying. The Constitution is not a suicide pact? If we use your Extreme Interpretation of the 2nd, Then the government would have no power what so ever to control fire arms at all. People could buy a used Tank from some former Soviet Republic and claim it as their Right. the Government could not even limit ownership if you have a Record, or Mental Illness by your Standard. That is insane. Clearly there must be some control, a Balance between our Rights, and Public Safety.

After all the Government is Charged with Defending Both.

Maybe you are not noticing the gov't isn't doing a very good job "protecting" the unarmed, in cities around the country.

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban - ABC News

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban - ABC News

How many assualt weapons do you own?

I think we need to include assault knives, assault clubs and baseball bats, assault automobiles, etc. They only become "assault weapons" when they are used to assault someone. Otherwise, they are legally owned firearms. Well, until some feel-good asshole pol decides to make some weird kind of brownie points with his/her base by banning so-called assault weapons...

OMG, are you really THAT stupid? Seriously, that is impressive sir!
An AR-15 IS NOT a normal gun
A AK-47 IS NOT a normal gun
An M-4 Carbine...yeah, thats not normal either.

Just wow man, just...wow.


Here's his idea of plain ol' firearms:

[/IMG]


Edit: I've had time to think...this guy deserves a banana sticker or something! That has got to be the DUMBEST thing I have EVER EVER heard. (well, read)

They only become "assault weapons" when they are used to assault someone

LOL, I mean it truly does make me laugh out loud. I know I type "lol" all the time, but I'm just being sarcastic. But this...this is actually funny! it really is

another edit: Hey, if you were actually being sarcastic by posting that, sorry for any harsh words. If not....too funny.

 

[candycorn]

So explain what sensible gun laws need to be passed. Ohh and make sure they do not violate my second amendment rights or my supposed right to privacy.

I like the idea to limit magazine/clip size. Your thoughts?

If I want to be able to shoot a bunch of bullets, then you should not be telling me "how" I can shoot them. How about if we limit gas tanks in vehicles to two gallons, that way cars would not be "as" dangerous?

There are size limits on the amount of gasoline your car can carry (I think), the specifications of the tanks, the type of gasoline you can use, and, if I recall, the type of gasoline you can buy.

Next.

 

[candycorn]

Oh gosh, can you smell the desperation? Don't be pathetic man. You implied we should ban high capacity magazines because they allow someone to get off more rounds quicker.

They do, if they don't jam. When they don't jam, scientists tell us that 100 round mags fire more than 6 round mags. Thus allowing the maniacs to fire 94 more rounds.

Scientists tell us that 94 is greater than 6. I tell you what, give me your address and I'll send you some flashcards so you can learn basic math. You obviously are ignorant on the subject.


"All the time." Arguing with anecdotes instead of debating with data never helps one's case.

PS: There is a reason gun manufacturers make them. It isn't because they don't work.

The guys that buy them tend to try them once and never again. They're crap because they nearly always fail. Hey, just like you!

All the best...

Gee, it sounds as if limiting the number of rounds in a magazine to 6 will save a lot of people a lot of money. Another good reason to do it! That, logic, common sense, etc...

All the best....

But they do jam. That's the truth. So while your math may be correct, your assumption that a 100 round drum will result in more shots fire more quickly is simply wrong. That's reality.

Yes it could and the gun could mis-fire all together, glue could be poured down the barrel. Seriously, is this the best you can do?

There is a reason it's manufactured and sold. They work sometimes. Apparently they jam sometimes too.

Now the number is 6? Where in the fuck did you come up with that? Why not one?

It's a much better idea, I agree; a 1 round clip! Maybe not though. To hear you and the other proponents spin it; apparently having a 1 round clip would be faster than having a 6 if having a 6 is faster than having a 12, and 12 is faster than having 100. You should be happy. Earlier today you guys were making that idiotic argument.

Bottom line, your attempt to ban anything will not stop criminals from avoiding your rules. It's why we call them criminals.

It's not a ban. It's a common sense limit on the number of rounds that can be in a magazine. Just like we limit the speed on the freeways. People don't always obey it either but it does serve to keep persons safer as statistics proved when the speed limit was reduced.

At first, that is true but over the years, the large clips/mag will be weeded out. For example, the clip/mag that guy used last week in Colorado will not be used again. 1 down, a billion to go. Eventually, the equilibrium will be reached. Also if there is a deranged guy out there just looking for weaponry, it has become just a little harder to get. I'm sure--the gun trade being what it is--that it's not by any stretch of the imagination that much harder but if it keeps one deranged person for acquiring a 100 round magazine, you poor guys will just have to live with it.

Much like cars that have seat belts. You can still find cars without them but they decrease in number over time. Now we have safer cars, safer streets and a safer society.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Anyone with two brain cells would know that it would take longer to load 6 magazines instead of three. You should ask someone with said common sense.

You job is to show how much more time and how that time is significant.
Thus far, you have failed miserably.

I can't get the blind to see.

No one can see what you cannot show.
fact of the matter is you have no knowledge of the subject and therefore cannot possibly know how much less deadly a shooter might be if he has to swap mags two more times.

Or those who can't define either word. Your mileage may vary.

That'd be YOU, hoss.
When you pass a llaw that prevents people from buying someting, you have BANNED that something. No way to (honestly) argue otherwise.

As I said, nothing will be done about this until the children of some influential members of Congress are gunned down in cold blood

Good to see you;re willing to have others to pay for your authoritarian ambitions.
Read any good Che lately?

 

[M14 Shooter]

All you gun grabbers that are upset by the fact the 2nd Amendment protects our right to own weapons... simple solution.

Since no law that bans semi automatics will survive a court challenge and since no law banning magazine sizes will either, go for what you REALLY want.

Ask for an amendment to repel the 2nd. Or are you afraid that admitting your goal is the elimination of all firearms will not pass muster with the citizenry?

I don't care how many guns you have.

However..................you should only be able to carry 15 rounds/gun.

Please provide a sound argument to support this; be sure to explain how this would not violate the constitution.

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

I don't think we should base the decision on wether or not 100 round magazines are OK on the fact that they have a high tendency to jam, as they also have a high tendency to spit out deadly bullets before jamming.

To me, thats like saying, "we'll just leave it to chance"

 

[M14 Shooter]

EVER HEARD OF THE GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE? You should probably look it up.

Yes. There's no such thing.

 

[candycorn]

Listen to this idiot Scott Wilson of Sure Fire:

He says, "The more time you can spend putting rounds on target downrange, the less time you have to spend re-loading, the better your chances are of surviving that lethal force encounter. " Then he goes on to demonstrate his company's new 100 and 60 round clip. Curiously, they didn't seem to jam in the video. I guess this was the exception:

SureFire MAG5-100 Round Magazine by NOLATAC - YouTube

 

[candycorn]

You job is to show how much more time and how that time is significant.
Thus far, you have failed miserably.

I can't get the blind to see.

No one can see what you cannot show.
fact of the matter is you have no knowledge of the subject and therefore cannot possibly know how much less deadly a shooter might be if he has to swap mags two more times.

If he's swapping mags, he's not shooting. Right?
Therefore limiting the number of rounds in the mag makes the shooter swap mags more often.

I win.

Or those who can't define either word. Your mileage may vary.

That'd be YOU, hoss.
When you pass a llaw that prevents people from buying someting, you have BANNED that something. No way to (honestly) argue otherwise.

A limit is a limit because you can still buy mags/clips/drums/ etc... Therefore it's not a ban.

Not a nice try there but you get marginal points for sticking by your flailing argument.

As I said, nothing will be done about this until the children of some influential members of Congress are gunned down in cold blood

Good to see you;re willing to have others to pay for your authoritarian ambitions.
Read any good Che lately?

[/QUOTE]

Not sure what that means but thats okay. I take a certain solace in not being warped enough to understand somethings. LOL

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban - ABC News

How many assualt weapons do you own?

I think we need to include assault knives, assault clubs and baseball bats, assault automobiles, etc. They only become "assault weapons" when they are used to assault someone. Otherwise, they are legally owned firearms. Well, until some feel-good asshole pol decides to make some weird kind of brownie points with his/her base by banning so-called assault weapons...

OMG, are you really THAT stupid? Seriously, that is impressive sir!
An AR-15 IS NOT a normal gun
A AK-47 IS NOT a normal gun
An M-4 Carbine...yeah, thats not normal either.

A "normal" gun?


The 2nd amendment protects the individual right to own and use weapons that are suitable for service in the militia, are of common use at the time, and part of the ordinary military equipment, from infringement

There may be NO better example of this sort of weapon than an AR-15 with USGI 20- and/or 30- round magazines.