Simple SOLUTION to gun control

[candycorn]

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.

You have to remember, you're dealing with abnormal people here.

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

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

Yes. There's no such thing.

There are documentaries of people going into private gunshows along the US/Mex boarder with absoutly ZERO paperwork and walking out, in less than 45 minutes, with over 15 assualt rifes. (hidden video)
Doc: Vanguard, Arming the Mexican Cartels.

You talk a lot of supporting arguments, please support yours.

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.

Its also worth saying that at the time of the creation of the 2nd, a very skilled marksman MIGHT be able to fire 3 round in a minute.

suitable for service in the militia, are of common use at the time, and part of the ordinary military equipment, from infringement

I fail to see how assualt weapons fall into this. ESP "are of common use at the time"

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

You deliberately miss the point.
Since you refuse to accept that you are wrong, there's no sense in continueing to describe to you exactly how you are wrong.

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

As I said: Yours is a willful failure to understand.

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

Says he who hopes a number of congressmen have their kids gunned down so his gun-control agenda can move forward.

 

[candycorn]

Here is a video of another 100 round clip:

Keltec PLR-16 with 100 round Surefire Magazine - YouTube

It did jam. ONCE! So yeah, "always" is apparently the new "seldom"

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Yes. There's no such thing.

There are documentaries of people going into private gunshows along the US/Mex boarder with absoutly ZERO paperwork and walking out, in less than 45 minutes, with over 15 assualt rifes.

1 of 2 things happened:
-The licensed dealer broke th elaw
-The guns were bought from a private party, which -never- required a background check, whether at a gun show or between friends or relatives.
Thus, there's no "loophole".

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.

Its also worth saying that at the time of the creation of the 2nd, a very skilled marksman MIGHT be able to fire 3 round in a minute.

Irrelevant to anything I just said, and so, no, its not worth saying - unless, of course, you believe that the protections afforded to our rights by the constitution are limited to the technologies in place at the time the BoR was ratified. Is that the case?

 

[candycorn]

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.

You deliberately miss the point.
Since you refuse to accept that you are wrong, there's no sense in continueing to describe to you exactly how you are wrong.

The point is that the less time spent firing and the more time spent re-loading will save lives when it's some madman doing the shooting. That is simple logic. Again, I win because logic is on my side. Sorry.

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

As I said: Yours is a willful failure to understand.

Well, your mileage may vary. The word "limit" will remain in our lexicon though.

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

Says he who hopes a number of congressmen have their kids gunned down so his gun-control agenda can move forward.

[/QUOTE]

Obviously, you're stretching the truth all sorts of ways there. I have said on another thread that I'm certainly not endorsing any such action. But the only way that our "leaders" will wake up is when the tragedy hits home to them. They had one of their fellow members nearly killed by a gun and their response was to basically say a prayer and get back to ignoring the crisis.

In no way have I ever "hoped" for it.

 

[candycorn]

Yes. There's no such thing.

There are documentaries of people going into private gunshows along the US/Mex boarder with absoutly ZERO paperwork and walking out, in less than 45 minutes, with over 15 assualt rifes.

1 of 2 things happened:
-The licensed dealer broke th elaw
-The guns were bought from a private party, which -never- required a background check, whether at a gun show or between friends or relatives.
Thus, there's no "loophole".

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.

Its also worth saying that at the time of the creation of the 2nd, a very skilled marksman MIGHT be able to fire 3 round in a minute.

Irrelevant to anything I just said, and so, no, its not worth saying - unless, of course, you believe that the protections afforded to our rights by the constitution are limited to the technologies in place at the time the BoR was ratified. Is that the case?

It's not a loophole when you can drive a tank through it I guess. That will be the next thing we "ban".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It takes about a second or 2 to change magazines. But it is irrelevant since anyone bent on mass murder will buy high capacity magazines from illegal sources if magazines are banned.

You people are beyond stupid.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

You deliberately miss the point.
Since you refuse to accept that you are wrong, there's no sense in continueing to describe to you exactly how you are wrong.

The point is that the less time spent firing and the more time spent re-loading will save lives when it's some madman doing the shooting. That is simple logic.

You cannot show that the difference in time makes a meaningful difference.
Without the ability to show that meaningful difference, it is impossible for you to argue that there's any necessity to ban hi-cap mags.
Thus you lose. Sorry.

Well, your mileage may vary. The word "limit" will remain in our lexicon though.

I already explained how actually you want to BAN the magazines. You refuse to accept that truth.
Not much I can do for someone that refuses to believe the truth.

Obviously, you're stretching the truth all sorts of ways there.

No, I'm commenting on your words, which I quoted.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There are documentaries of people going into private gunshows along the US/Mex boarder with absoutly ZERO paperwork and walking out, in less than 45 minutes, with over 15 assualt rifes.

1 of 2 things happened:
-The licensed dealer broke th elaw
-The guns were bought from a private party, which -never- required a background check, whether at a gun show or between friends or relatives.
Thus, there's no "loophole".

Its also worth saying that at the time of the creation of the 2nd, a very skilled marksman MIGHT be able to fire 3 round in a minute.

Irrelevant to anything I just said, and so, no, its not worth saying - unless, of course, you believe that the protections afforded to our rights by the constitution are limited to the technologies in place at the time the BoR was ratified. Is that the case?

It's not a loophole...

... period.
Federal Law for buying a gun is the same eveywehere you go; there nothing different about buying a gun a show than anywhere else. Nothing.

 

[candycorn]

You deliberately miss the point.
Since you refuse to accept that you are wrong, there's no sense in continueing to describe to you exactly how you are wrong.

The point is that the less time spent firing and the more time spent re-loading will save lives when it's some madman doing the shooting. That is simple logic.

You cannot show that the difference in time makes a meaningful difference.
Without the ability to show that meaningful difference, it is impossible for you to argue that there's any necessity to ban hi-cap mags.
Thus you lose. Sorry.

If the shooter is re-loading, he's not shooting. Whatever time it is is precious when you're running from the guy shooting. Sorry. "Meaningful difference". Wow...did that sound as stupid in your head as it looks next to your lame argument?

Well, your mileage may vary. The word "limit" will remain in our lexicon though.

I already explained how actually you want to BAN the magazines. You refuse to accept that truth.
Not much I can do for someone that refuses to believe the truth.

A limit on the number of rounds the weapon holds is not a ban. It was the truth at 4AM today and it's the truth at 8PM tonight.

Obviously, you're stretching the truth all sorts of ways there.

No, I'm commenting on your words, which I quoted.

[/QUOTE]

Show me where I used the word "hope", Please.

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

Yes. There's no such thing.

There are documentaries of people going into private gunshows along the US/Mex boarder with absoutly ZERO paperwork and walking out, in less than 45 minutes, with over 15 assualt rifes.

1 of 2 things happened:
-The licensed dealer broke th elaw
-The guns were bought from a private party, which -never- required a background check, whether at a gun show or between friends or relatives.
Thus, there's no "loophole".

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.

Its also worth saying that at the time of the creation of the 2nd, a very skilled marksman MIGHT be able to fire 3 round in a minute.

Irrelevant to anything I just said, and so, no, its not worth saying - unless, of course, you believe that the protections afforded to our rights by the constitution are limited to the technologies in place at the time the BoR was ratified. Is that the case?

1 of 2 things happened:
-The licensed dealer broke th elaw
-The guns were bought from a private party, which -never- required a background check, whether at a gun show or between friends or relatives.
Thus, there's no "loophole".

You're doing an awful job of supporting your argument.

"The guns were bought from a private party, which -never- required a background check, whether at a gun show or between friends or relatives"

There ya go champ, you found the loophole. How bout this, I won't call it a 'loophole' I'll call it the "gunshow problem". Does that help?
See, this is where the differences between you and I become apparent. You seem to have no qualms with the fact that over 2,000 assault weapons cross the US boarder into mexico EACH DAY, and that had lead to the death of 50,000 people.

I, on the other hand, -knowing the majority of these guns in the cartels hands stem from private gunshows- am strongly disturbed by this fact.

Irrelevant to anything I just said, and so, no, its not worth saying - unless, of course, you believe that the protections afforded to our rights by the constitution are limited to the technologies in place at the time the BoR was ratified. Is that the case

What I'm saying is that there was NO CONCEPT of 100-round magazine assault rifes at the time. Why do you think amendments can be made to the constition, anyway?

Its really no issue that people are selling weapons privatly. The issue is that these private gunshows a literally located right on the US/Mexican boarder. Its obvious what their intentions are being located that close to such a massive consumer of US weaponry.

Some supporting evidence:
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Files.View&FileStore_id=beaff893-63c1-4941-9903-67a0dc739b9d

 

[candycorn]

It takes about a second or 2 to change magazines. But it is irrelevant since anyone bent on mass murder will buy high capacity magazines from illegal sources if magazines are banned.

You people are beyond stupid.

A second or two in what conditions? If they are being shot at by cops, they will likely take a bit longer having to crouch behind cover. If a Jeremy Glyk, Todd Beamer, or Mark Bingham type of hero is around, they may not even get the 2nd clip in there.

Yes, anyone bent on mass murder will buy high cap mags; you're right about that. But you limit their availability and you reduce the amount, drive the price up (supply and demand). Maybe the whackjobs will be priced out of the market.

As for being "beyond stupid", thinking you need an assault rifle is the clubhouse leader.

 

[candycorn]

There are documentaries of people going into private gunshows along the US/Mex boarder with absoutly ZERO paperwork and walking out, in less than 45 minutes, with over 15 assualt rifes.

1 of 2 things happened:
-The licensed dealer broke th elaw
-The guns were bought from a private party, which -never- required a background check, whether at a gun show or between friends or relatives.
Thus, there's no "loophole".


Irrelevant to anything I just said, and so, no, its not worth saying - unless, of course, you believe that the protections afforded to our rights by the constitution are limited to the technologies in place at the time the BoR was ratified. Is that the case?

1 of 2 things happened:
-The licensed dealer broke th elaw
-The guns were bought from a private party, which -never- required a background check, whether at a gun show or between friends or relatives.
Thus, there's no "loophole".

You're doing an awful job of supporting your argument.

"The licensed dealer broke th elaw"
This, by far, shows how little you understand of the topic at hand.

"The guns were bought from a private party, which -never- required a background check, whether at a gun show or between friends or relatives"

There ya go champ, you found the loophole. How bout this, I won't call it a 'loophole' I'll call it the "gunshow problem". Does that help?
See, this is where the differences between you and I become apparent. You seem to have no qualms with the fact that over 2,000 assault weapons cross the US boarder into mexico EACH DAY, and that had lead to the death of 50,000 people.

I, on the other hand, -knowing the majority of these guns in the cartels hands stem from private gunshows- am strongly disturbed by this fact.

Irrelevant to anything I just said, and so, no, its not worth saying - unless, of course, you believe that the protections afforded to our rights by the constitution are limited to the technologies in place at the time the BoR was ratified. Is that the case

What I'm saying is that there was NO CONCEPT of 100-round magazine assault rifes at the time. Why do you think amendments can be made to the constition, anyway?

C'mon man, it's a "regulatory malfunction".

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

1 of 2 things happened:
-The licensed dealer broke th elaw
-The guns were bought from a private party, which -never- required a background check, whether at a gun show or between friends or relatives.
Thus, there's no "loophole".


Irrelevant to anything I just said, and so, no, its not worth saying - unless, of course, you believe that the protections afforded to our rights by the constitution are limited to the technologies in place at the time the BoR was ratified. Is that the case?

You're doing an awful job of supporting your argument.

"The licensed dealer broke th elaw"
This, by far, shows how little you understand of the topic at hand.

"The guns were bought from a private party, which -never- required a background check, whether at a gun show or between friends or relatives"

There ya go champ, you found the loophole. How bout this, I won't call it a 'loophole' I'll call it the "gunshow problem". Does that help?
See, this is where the differences between you and I become apparent. You seem to have no qualms with the fact that over 2,000 assault weapons cross the US boarder into mexico EACH DAY, and that had lead to the death of 50,000 people.

I, on the other hand, -knowing the majority of these guns in the cartels hands stem from private gunshows- am strongly disturbed by this fact.

Irrelevant to anything I just said, and so, no, its not worth saying - unless, of course, you believe that the protections afforded to our rights by the constitution are limited to the technologies in place at the time the BoR was ratified. Is that the case

What I'm saying is that there was NO CONCEPT of 100-round magazine assault rifes at the time. Why do you think amendments can be made to the constition, anyway?

C'mon man, it's a "regulatory malfunction".

But its so senseless. The fact that any amount of firearms are being provided to drug cartels simply because people don't want to take 15 minutes to sign some paper is...sickening. 50,000 people in 4 years. That's the toll of the drug war in Mexico. America has done very well to pretend it has nothing to do with it.

I'm going to rewatch the hidden camera part of the doc to refersh my mem of what happend.

The guy with the camera goes to buy a gun from a private dealer. The 'camera guy' is actually the host with a hidden camera.
Private seller: "No tax, not title, no license"
Camera guy: "I don't need to do any documentation or anything like that?"
Private seller: "With him you do, with me you don't. I am a private individual."
Camera guy:" You guy's don't do a background check or anything?"
Private Seller: "Uh, no. We are private, private salesman."
Camera guy: "I probably wouldn't pass one so..."
Private seller:" You don't need to tell me all that stuff"
The camera guy's parnter (the one doing the business part) then was able to buy two AR15s from the same "private salesman"
Its one thing if they simply didn't require background checks, its a different thing entierly when they don't care about your background.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It takes about a second or 2 to change magazines. But it is irrelevant since anyone bent on mass murder will buy high capacity magazines from illegal sources if magazines are banned.

You people are beyond stupid.

A second or two in what conditions? If they are being shot at by cops, they will likely take a bit longer having to crouch behind cover. If a Jeremy Glyk, Todd Beamer, or Mark Bingham type of hero is around, they may not even get the 2nd clip in there.

Yes, anyone bent on mass murder will buy high cap mags; you're right about that. But you limit their availability and you reduce the amount, drive the price up (supply and demand). Maybe the whackjobs will be priced out of the market.

As for being "beyond stupid", thinking you need an assault rifle is the clubhouse leader.

DEFINE assault weapon. Be specific.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Setting aside for the moment there is no Constitutional right to drive, the state can provide documented evidence in support of speed limits and their efficacy, the same can not be said for limits on ammunition capacity.

If the state is going to limit, restrict, or otherwise curtail a given civil right, in this case gun ownership, it must demonstrate a compelling governmental interest, a logical and consistent rationale, and evidence in support of that interest and rationale.

No such evidence exists that restricting magazine capacity will result in fewer gun-related deaths, or gun violence overall. It boils down to only what can be proven in a court of law.

 

[thanatos144]

It takes about a second or 2 to change magazines. But it is irrelevant since anyone bent on mass murder will buy high capacity magazines from illegal sources if magazines are banned.

You people are beyond stupid.

A second or two in what conditions? If they are being shot at by cops, they will likely take a bit longer having to crouch behind cover. If a Jeremy Glyk, Todd Beamer, or Mark Bingham type of hero is around, they may not even get the 2nd clip in there.

Yes, anyone bent on mass murder will buy high cap mags; you're right about that. But you limit their availability and you reduce the amount, drive the price up (supply and demand). Maybe the whackjobs will be priced out of the market.

As for being "beyond stupid", thinking you need an assault rifle is the clubhouse leader.

DEFINE assault weapon. Be specific.

scary looking ? Lol

 

[candycorn]

You're doing an awful job of supporting your argument.

"The licensed dealer broke th elaw"
This, by far, shows how little you understand of the topic at hand.

"The guns were bought from a private party, which -never- required a background check, whether at a gun show or between friends or relatives"

There ya go champ, you found the loophole. How bout this, I won't call it a 'loophole' I'll call it the "gunshow problem". Does that help?
See, this is where the differences between you and I become apparent. You seem to have no qualms with the fact that over 2,000 assault weapons cross the US boarder into mexico EACH DAY, and that had lead to the death of 50,000 people.

I, on the other hand, -knowing the majority of these guns in the cartels hands stem from private gunshows- am strongly disturbed by this fact.


What I'm saying is that there was NO CONCEPT of 100-round magazine assault rifes at the time. Why do you think amendments can be made to the constition, anyway?

C'mon man, it's a "regulatory malfunction".

But its so senseless. The fact that any amount of firearms are being provided to drug cartels simply because people don't want to take 15 minutes to sign some paper is...sickening. 50,000 people in 4 years. That's the toll of the drug war in Mexico. America has done very well to pretend it has nothing to do with it.

I'm going to rewatch the hidden camera part of the doc to refersh my mem of what happend.

The guy with the camera goes to buy a gun from a private dealer. The 'camera guy' is actually the host with a hidden camera.
Private seller: "No tax, not title, no license"
Camera guy: "I don't need to do any documentation or anything like that?"
Private seller: "With him you do, with me you don't. I am a private individual."
Camera guy:" You guy's don't do a background check or anything?"
Private Seller: "Uh, no. We are private, private salesman."
Camera guy: "I probably wouldn't pass one so..."
Private seller:" You don't need to tell me all that stuff"
The camera guy's parnter (the one doing the business part) then was able to buy two AR15s from the same "private salesman"
Its one thing if they simply didn't require background checks, its a different thing entierly when they don't care about your background.

It's also a self fulfilling prophecy. I love how on one hand the proponents come out with, "Well, if you limit the capacity of the mag/clip, the criminals will just be able to acquire it anyway" THEN they same proponent tries to tell us the interaction you described above is not happening, not a loophole, totally above board, etc...

 

[candycorn]

Setting aside for the moment there is no Constitutional right to drive, the state can provide documented evidence in support of speed limits and their efficacy, the same can not be said for limits on ammunition capacity.

If the state is going to limit, restrict, or otherwise curtail a given civil right, in this case gun ownership, it must demonstrate a compelling governmental interest, a logical and consistent rationale, and evidence in support of that interest and rationale.

No such evidence exists that restricting magazine capacity will result in fewer gun-related deaths, or gun violence overall. It boils down to only what can be proven in a court of law.

Certainly one can deconstruct a scene where an assault rifle where a clip was used and demonstrate that if there were fewer bullets in the clip/mag there would have been fewer rounds discharged.