So let me get this straight....

[martybegan]

The only idea I would have is one I've seen in the movies. Put a triggering mechanism on guns that only allow their owners to fire them. But even that idea causes issues

In the Newtown case, this guy probably LEGALLY owned these guns. I have not heard if that was not the case?

He killed his mother and took HER guns. He was not old enough to purchase them on his own yet.

 

[VaYank5150]

I hear you....but to my wife's point this morning, without the firepower of an AR-15, you cannot kill as many children as quickly or indiscriminately as you could with a 9MM. Her point actually makes sense to me...

Yes you can. The AR15 can only fire one round at a time. The same as a 9mm. Your wife understand what "semi"automatic means?

In fact, in close quarters the 9mm handgun is the superior weapon. You can reload it faster, you can shoot targets closer to you far more easily, and you can shoot two of them at the same time.

My apologies for not being up on what an AR-15 can and cannot do. I am sure she was referring to fully automatic machine guns in general.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Smoking is not mentioned in the second amendment; not even smoking barrels.

Neither are M-16s or AR-15s. What is your point?

Actually, they are... The right to bear ARMS (that is ALL weapons, including assault weapons - too bad if you don't like it)

the right to bear arms, can actually be broken down by definition as the right to "carry" arms. so the constitution does not refer to the right to purchase arms, only the right to carry them. thus i can easily make the argument that the founders wanted people to have the ability to carry arms, but the right to purchase them would not be a protected right.

seeing as how "assault weapons" were not available when the constitution was written, nor are those words specifically written in the constitution you can also make the argument that these are not part of the constitution. just as rocket launchers, armored vehicle, tanks, fighter jets or nuclear weapon, all which are technically considered "arms" are not allowed to be owned by the citizens.

 

[VaYank5150]

The only idea I would have is one I've seen in the movies. Put a triggering mechanism on guns that only allow their owners to fire them. But even that idea causes issues

In the Newtown case, this guy probably LEGALLY owned these guns. I have not heard if that was not the case?

He killed his mother and took HER guns. He was not old enough to purchase them on his own yet.

So....perhaps Grampa's got an idea?

 

[chikenwing]

I hear you...all of you on the gun rights side. I do. So, if banning guns or limiting them in some way is not the answer, what is? Or...do we simply accept these tragedies as the norm?

Anyone who would do such a thing is clearly mentally unstable. Start there......

Banning/outlawing/controlling guns is a PLAN. You don't have a plan, and unless you want one created for you, you better come up with one quick....

Thats where you are ether willfully wrong,or just not paying much attention.

Enforce laws already on books .

Look at the people not what tool they used,it could have been a Remington 1100 12 with double aught buck shot,the results would have been the same.

Its a people problem not a gun control problem.

 

[VaYank5150]

Anyone who would do such a thing is clearly mentally unstable. Start there......

Banning/outlawing/controlling guns is a PLAN. You don't have a plan, and unless you want one created for you, you better come up with one quick....

Thats where you are ether willfully wrong,or just not paying much attention.

Enforce laws already on books .

Look at the people not what tool they used,it could have been a Remington 1100 12 with double aught buck shot,the results would have been the same.

Its a people problem not a gun control problem.

Those same people without the tools are much less dangerous.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I hear you....but to my wife's point this morning, without the firepower of an AR-15, you cannot kill as many children as quickly or indiscriminately as you could with a 9MM. Her point actually makes sense to me...

Bull prunes... hogwash... or whatever other term you wish to use... That is a scared reaction and not a logical one, or one based in reality

I disagree. There is logic there. Besides the obvious statement of "because I want one"....what need is there to have a machine gun in your personal possession? I know you don't need it for hunting. And if you aim is so bad that you want the firepower of a machine gun to help protect you from an intruder, then I recommend you go get some training on your hand gun...

Who cares what need there is. I dont need fly fishing rods but I do have them.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Anyone who would do such a thing is clearly mentally unstable. Start there......

Banning/outlawing/controlling guns is a PLAN. You don't have a plan, and unless you want one created for you, you better come up with one quick....

Thats where you are ether willfully wrong,or just not paying much attention.

Enforce laws already on books .

Look at the people not what tool they used,it could have been a Remington 1100 12 with double aught buck shot,the results would have been the same.

Its a people problem not a gun control problem.

yet you never see a mass shooting with a shotgun. you do however see it with high powered assault weapons and large magazine hand guns.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Yes you can. The AR15 can only fire one round at a time. The same as a 9mm. Your wife understand what "semi"automatic means?

In fact, in close quarters the 9mm handgun is the superior weapon. You can reload it faster, you can shoot targets closer to you far more easily, and you can shoot two of them at the same time.

My apologies for not being up on what an AR-15 can and cannot do. I am sure she was referring to fully automatic machine guns in general.

I don't think any fully automatic weapons are legal are they?

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Bull prunes... hogwash... or whatever other term you wish to use... That is a scared reaction and not a logical one, or one based in reality

I disagree. There is logic there. Besides the obvious statement of "because I want one"....what need is there to have a machine gun in your personal possession? I know you don't need it for hunting. And if you aim is so bad that you want the firepower of a machine gun to help protect you from an intruder, then I recommend you go get some training on your hand gun...

Who cares what need there is. I dont need fly fishing rods but I do have them.

i didnt know fly fishing rods were considered "arms" now

 

[VaYank5150]

Bull prunes... hogwash... or whatever other term you wish to use... That is a scared reaction and not a logical one, or one based in reality

I disagree. There is logic there. Besides the obvious statement of "because I want one"....what need is there to have a machine gun in your personal possession? I know you don't need it for hunting. And if you aim is so bad that you want the firepower of a machine gun to help protect you from an intruder, then I recommend you go get some training on your hand gun...

Who cares what need there is. I dont need fly fishing rods but I do have them.

How many children have been killed in a 30 minute time span with fly fishing rods?

 

[DiamondDave]

I hear you....but to my wife's point this morning, without the firepower of an AR-15, you cannot kill as many children as quickly or indiscriminately as you could with a 9MM. Her point actually makes sense to me...

Bull prunes... hogwash... or whatever other term you wish to use... That is a scared reaction and not a logical one, or one based in reality

I disagree. There is logic there. Besides the obvious statement of "because I want one"....what need is there to have a machine gun in your personal possession? I know you don't need it for hunting. And if you aim is so bad that you want the firepower of a machine gun to help protect you from an intruder, then I recommend you go get some training on your hand gun...

An AR-15 is not a machine gun.. if you said an M-60, I may agree with you.. but it takes a special permit/licensing to even obtain a machine gun...

I have used my AR for hunting, because it is a weapon I am VERY comfortable with.. considering the thousands and thousands of rounds I have fired from either an AR or an M16

 

[DiamondDave]

Banning/outlawing/controlling guns is a PLAN. You don't have a plan, and unless you want one created for you, you better come up with one quick....

Thats where you are ether willfully wrong,or just not paying much attention.

Enforce laws already on books .

Look at the people not what tool they used,it could have been a Remington 1100 12 with double aught buck shot,the results would have been the same.

Its a people problem not a gun control problem.

yet you never see a mass shooting with a shotgun. you do however see it with high powered assault weapons and large magazine hand guns.

You wanna know the amount of damage one can do with a Saiga-12??? Perhaps you should research before talking out of your ass

 

[DiamondDave]

Banning/outlawing/controlling guns is a PLAN. You don't have a plan, and unless you want one created for you, you better come up with one quick....

Thats where you are ether willfully wrong,or just not paying much attention.

Enforce laws already on books .

Look at the people not what tool they used,it could have been a Remington 1100 12 with double aught buck shot,the results would have been the same.

Its a people problem not a gun control problem.

Those same people without the tools are much less dangerous.

Yep.. those doctors will make markedly less mistakes

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Alcohol kills far more people than guns. As do cars. Shall we ban them in order to save lives? That is the ultimate goal is it not? Or is the goal simply to ban guns?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I disagree. There is logic there. Besides the obvious statement of "because I want one"....what need is there to have a machine gun in your personal possession? I know you don't need it for hunting. And if you aim is so bad that you want the firepower of a machine gun to help protect you from an intruder, then I recommend you go get some training on your hand gun...

Who cares what need there is. I dont need fly fishing rods but I do have them.

How many children have been killed in a 30 minute time span with fly fishing rods?

0 but thats not the point.

 

[Skull Pilot]

your rights end where others rights begin

your rights end at my doorstep; anyone who breaks into my house is violating my rights and will be shot.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Thats where you are ether willfully wrong,or just not paying much attention.

Enforce laws already on books .

Look at the people not what tool they used,it could have been a Remington 1100 12 with double aught buck shot,the results would have been the same.

Its a people problem not a gun control problem.

yet you never see a mass shooting with a shotgun. you do however see it with high powered assault weapons and large magazine hand guns.

You wanna know the amount of damage one can do with a Saiga-12??? Perhaps you should research before talking out of your ass

i never stated that it wasnt possible, yet it is not the weapon of choice. wanna try again?

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Who cares what need there is. I dont need fly fishing rods but I do have them.

How many children have been killed in a 30 minute time span with fly fishing rods?

0 but thats not the point.

you brought up that argument. now you have to defend it.

 

[Truthmatters]

see the gun worship?