Colorado judge strikes down AR-15 ban, and over 10 round magazine ban....good.

[woodwork201]

We don't enforce our federal gun laws at all. If we did then we would have more of a deterrent

So you're suggesting that gun control and gun laws would work if only they were more strictly enforced?

 

[woodwork201]

If you need more than ten rounds to hit what your aiming at maybe you don't need a gun.

There are plenty of examples on the google that prove you wrong. Plenty of accounts where the police fire dozens of shots and hit their target once or twice. Or fire dozens of shots and nobody at all gets hit. There are plenty of accounts of large groups storming a home in a home invasion.

You're right, though, if I am shooting at a target 100 yards away; I should be able to hit it within 10 shots. Running, moving, targets, targets that may be shooting back, is a totally different thing.

 

[woodwork201]

But you know, I'm the kind of guy that believes in compromise. If the Democrats really believe that smaller magazines will solve all our gun problems, sign a contract with Republicans that states after we mandate all these smaller magazines, nobody will ever bring up a gun issue again as long as there's a Democrat party, and I'll support it.

They promised border security in 1986 if Reagan would compromise on amnesty - and then, immediately, broke their promise.

They could all promise to walk off a cliff like lemmings and I wouldn't make a deal with a Democrat.

 

[Batcat]

Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.

Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.

Superiority of firepower. At least parody of firepower. That's why. That's more explanation than you're entitled to.

Why do you need such "firepower"? I am entitled to an explanation because I live in this country and guns are designed to be pointed at other people.

“Guns are designed to be pointed at other people.”

WRONG!

The only time you should ever point a firearm at someone is when they are attacking you or someone else with the intention of putting their victim in a hospital or six feet under.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's right. Gangs, whether white, black, latino, or other, view prison time as the men's club time. They know that most of them will get out so it's like training camp for them. The hard-core lifers are the camp counselors but they can kill you when you can't master the skill.

It needs to be a far more miserable experience than it is. Sheriff-Arpaio-style meals and work camps. Actually, I think he was far too easy on prisoners but it would be a good start.

My idea is to have prisons like in the classic movie Cool Hand Luke. If prisons were like that today, we'd have a lot less occupants in them.

In the black community, serving time in prison is what's known as street cred. A person who served time is viewed with reverence by those who are on their path to prison as well. They look up to them. They are their mentors.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.

Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.

If it's not being used to commit a crime it's none of your business.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Cecilie1200]

And what the hell are you supposed to do if you have more than one assailant? Morph into Annie Oakley and take them all out with one shot each? Yeah, that'll happen.

They are just puppets. Saying that less capacity magazines will do anything about crime in our country is like saying if we made beer with .01% less alcohol, that will stop drunk driving.

People like him never shot a gun in their lives and join in on a conversation that has a lot of gun owners and shooters, then make idiotic remarks like that trying to convince us they know what they are talking about.

But you know, I'm the kind of guy that believes in compromise. If the Democrats really believe that smaller magazines will solve all our gun problems, sign a contract with Republicans that states after we mandate all these smaller magazines, nobody will ever bring up a gun issue again as long as there's a Democrat party, and I'll support it.

I gotta say, I'm with Freya on this: you could get Democrats to sign that deal in blood, and I STILL wouldn't trust them to leave it alone. Also, I'm not even remotely willing to leave even one small aspect of my decisions on protecting myself up to them. My safety is not an issue to be decided by committee, because I'M the only one who's going to have to live with the results.

I'm not a gun enthusiast, or a hunter, or any of those other things. My perspective is that of a woman who once had her life threatened by a murderer on a dark street, with no help anywhere in sight, and got away only by the grace of God. I don't have any of the fancy stats, or encyclopedic knowledge of various types, or categorical memorization of laws in different states. I know how to put a bullet where I aim it. I also know this: I will never have to depend on only the grace of God to get away safely ever, ever again. And it's not up for compromise.

Guns are good, but don't forget that nothing says; "Get your hands off me!!" like a face full of pepper spray and a shank to the scrotum.

You can't put a tourniquet on the taint.

I prefer not letting attackers get close enough to me for pepper spray and shanking, if at all possible.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I gotta say, I'm with Freya on this: you could get Democrats to sign that deal in blood, and I STILL wouldn't trust them to leave it alone. Also, I'm not even remotely willing to leave even one small aspect of my decisions on protecting myself up to them. My safety is not an issue to be decided by committee, because I'M the only one who's going to have to live with the results.

I'm not a gun enthusiast, or a hunter, or any of those other things. My perspective is that of a woman who once had her life threatened by a murderer on a dark street, with no help anywhere in sight, and got away only by the grace of God. I don't have any of the fancy stats, or encyclopedic knowledge of various types, or categorical memorization of laws in different states. I know how to put a bullet where I aim it. I also know this: I will never have to depend on only the grace of God to get away safely ever, ever again. And it's not up for compromise.

You, I, and anybody that's pro-gun knows the Democrats would never sign anything like that. It would only be a dog and pony show to demonstrate to the public that smaller magazines is just one stepping stone to their ultimate goal of a disarmed public. In other words, to show people they would never stop at smaller magazines and be happy with that.

So we don't compromise, but make it look like we are trying to compromise and they are refusing to meet us half-way.

I prefer to make it look like the "champions of women's rights" are demanding that women live in constant fear and danger of being helplessly raped and murdered. Since, y'know, that actually IS what they're doing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you need more than ten rounds to hit what your aiming at maybe you don't need a gun.

There are plenty of examples on the google that prove you wrong. Plenty of accounts where the police fire dozens of shots and hit their target once or twice. Or fire dozens of shots and nobody at all gets hit. There are plenty of accounts of large groups storming a home in a home invasion.

You're right, though, if I am shooting at a target 100 yards away; I should be able to hit it within 10 shots. Running, moving, targets, targets that may be shooting back, is a totally different thing.

Also, crimes are frequently not committed in well-lighted shooting galleries, where you're calm and prepared.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.

Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.

Superiority of firepower. At least parody of firepower. That's why. That's more explanation than you're entitled to.

Why do you need such "firepower"? I am entitled to an explanation because I live in this country and guns are designed to be pointed at other people.

“Guns are designed to be pointed at other people.”

WRONG!

The only time you should ever point a firearm at someone is when they are attacking you or someone else with the intention of putting their victim in a hospital or six feet under.

View attachment 475278

Guns have a lot of their deterrent effect by simply being present, or by the mere possibility that they MIGHT be present. This is why mass shootings invariably take place in "gun free zones".

 

[Blues Man]

We don't enforce our federal gun laws at all. If we did then we would have more of a deterrent

So you're suggesting that gun control and gun laws would work if only they were more strictly enforced?

It's criminal control not gun control and it works

Project Exile, U.S. Attorney's Office -- Eastern District of Virginia

In just three years, Project Exile has startled critics and supporters with a message so strong it makes criminals drop guns. Now everyone from the NRA to the Million Mom March to Congress wants a piece of the action.

Growing Exile

www.styleweekly.com

 

[JoeB131]

With a couple of dozen or more street thugs shooting each other in Chicago every day don't you think that the Democrats running that city aren't locking up enough?

Chicago had a sensible gun ban. Then the National Rampage Association got it overturned in court, and our murder rate doubled..

No, locking people up isn't solving the problem.

 

[Blues Man]

With a couple of dozen or more street thugs shooting each other in Chicago every day don't you think that the Democrats running that city aren't locking up enough?

Chicago had a sensible gun ban. Then the National Rampage Association got it overturned in court, and our murder rate doubled..

No, locking people up isn't solving the problem.

you'll never admit that we lock up the wrong people will you?

60% of people in jails right now are not convicted of any crime, and we lock up people for nonviolent drug offenses and property damage more than we lock up the violent criminals that are actually the danger to society.

 

[woodwork201]

We don't enforce our federal gun laws at all. If we did then we would have more of a deterrent

So you're suggesting that gun control and gun laws would work if only they were more strictly enforced?

It's criminal control not gun control and it works

Project Exile, U.S. Attorney's Office -- Eastern District of Virginia

In just three years, Project Exile has startled critics and supporters with a message so strong it makes criminals drop guns. Now everyone from the NRA to the Million Mom March to Congress wants a piece of the action.

Growing Exile

www.styleweekly.com

It's gun control. Criminals are only controlled when in jail or prison. You pretend to be pro-gun, and support the 2nd Amendment but you're clearly anti-2nd-Amendment. If the old gun laws work then certainly more must work. All we need to do is create them and enforce them - and call it criminal control.

 

[Blues Man]

We don't enforce our federal gun laws at all. If we did then we would have more of a deterrent

So you're suggesting that gun control and gun laws would work if only they were more strictly enforced?

It's criminal control not gun control and it works

Project Exile, U.S. Attorney's Office -- Eastern District of Virginia

In just three years, Project Exile has startled critics and supporters with a message so strong it makes criminals drop guns. Now everyone from the NRA to the Million Mom March to Congress wants a piece of the action.

Growing Exile

www.styleweekly.com

It's gun control. Criminals are only controlled when in jail or prison. You pretend to be pro-gun, and support the 2nd Amendment but you're clearly anti-2nd-Amendment. If the old gun laws work then certainly more must work. All we need to do is create them and enforce them - and call it criminal control.

Read the links.

Project exile put criminals in federal prisons for breaking federal gun laws. There were no new gun laws passed.

And you're a ******* idiot if you think I am not pro 2nd amendment. And FYI I have not once supported new gun laws because the federal gun laws we already have on the books are adequate.

 

[August West]

I gotta say, I'm with Freya on this: you could get Democrats to sign that deal in blood, and I STILL wouldn't trust them to leave it alone. Also, I'm not even remotely willing to leave even one small aspect of my decisions on protecting myself up to them. My safety is not an issue to be decided by committee, because I'M the only one who's going to have to live with the results.

I'm not a gun enthusiast, or a hunter, or any of those other things. My perspective is that of a woman who once had her life threatened by a murderer on a dark street, with no help anywhere in sight, and got away only by the grace of God. I don't have any of the fancy stats, or encyclopedic knowledge of various types, or categorical memorization of laws in different states. I know how to put a bullet where I aim it. I also know this: I will never have to depend on only the grace of God to get away safely ever, ever again. And it's not up for compromise.

You, I, and anybody that's pro-gun knows the Democrats would never sign anything like that. It would only be a dog and pony show to demonstrate to the public that smaller magazines is just one stepping stone to their ultimate goal of a disarmed public. In other words, to show people they would never stop at smaller magazines and be happy with that.

So we don't compromise, but make it look like we are trying to compromise and they are refusing to meet us half-way.

I prefer to make it look like the "champions of women's rights" are demanding that women live in constant fear and danger of being helplessly raped and murdered. Since, y'know, that actually IS what they're doing.

I`ve never known a woman who lived in constant fear of being helplessly raped and murdered. Is this your wife you`re describing?

 

[woodwork201]

It's gun control. Criminals are only controlled when in jail or prison. You pretend to be pro-gun, and support the 2nd Amendment but you're clearly anti-2nd-Amendment. If the old gun laws work then certainly more must work. All we need to do is create them and enforce them - and call it criminal control.

Read the links.

Project exile put criminals in federal prisons for breaking federal gun laws. There were no new gun laws passed.

And you're a ******* idiot if you think I am not pro 2nd amendment. And FYI I have not once supported new gun laws because the federal gun laws we already have on the books are adequate.

The Federal gun laws we have on the books are gun control and in violation of the 2nd Amendment and you openly support them and you've just stated that gun control, if enforced, works. You're a gun controller. Oh, sure, you're pro-gun, but you're certainly NOT pro-2nd-Amendment. You're an idiot if you think I'm going to fall for your lies.

You support gun control. In fact, you want existing gun control enforced. That you haven't yet openly supported new infringements on the right to keep and bear arms does not, in any way, alter the fact that you openly admit that you support the current infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.

If you don't see the hypocrisy in what you're saying, if you can't see that, in your heart, you support gun control, you're the idiot. You support the gun control you like and object to the controls you don't like. You can't have it both ways, though, the 2nd Amendment doesn't allow for some infringements. You're a gun controller; you're just in denial.

 

[Blues Man]

It's gun control. Criminals are only controlled when in jail or prison. You pretend to be pro-gun, and support the 2nd Amendment but you're clearly anti-2nd-Amendment. If the old gun laws work then certainly more must work. All we need to do is create them and enforce them - and call it criminal control.

Read the links.

Project exile put criminals in federal prisons for breaking federal gun laws. There were no new gun laws passed.

And you're a ******* idiot if you think I am not pro 2nd amendment. And FYI I have not once supported new gun laws because the federal gun laws we already have on the books are adequate.

The Federal gun laws we have on the books are gun control and in violation of the 2nd Amendment and you openly support them and you've just stated that gun control, if enforced, works. You're a gun controller. Oh, sure, you're pro-gun, but you're certainly NOT pro-2nd-Amendment. You're an idiot if you think I'm going to fall for your lies.

You support gun control. In fact, you want existing gun control enforced. That you haven't yet openly supported new infringements on the right to keep and bear arms does not, in any way, alter the fact that you openly admit that you support the current infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.

If you don't see the hypocrisy in what you're saying, if you can't see that, in your heart, you support gun control, you're the idiot. You support the gun control you like and object to the controls you don't like. You can't have it both ways, though, the 2nd Amendment doesn't allow for some infringements. You're a gun controller; you're just in denial.

I have no problem denying felons their right to bear arms. I have no problem denying people who obtain guns via illegal means their right to bear arms.

With rights come responsibilities.

You might want every excon to be able to buy a gun as he walks out of the door of prison I think it's a bad idea.

 

[August West]

It's gun control. Criminals are only controlled when in jail or prison. You pretend to be pro-gun, and support the 2nd Amendment but you're clearly anti-2nd-Amendment. If the old gun laws work then certainly more must work. All we need to do is create them and enforce them - and call it criminal control.

Read the links.

Project exile put criminals in federal prisons for breaking federal gun laws. There were no new gun laws passed.

And you're a ******* idiot if you think I am not pro 2nd amendment. And FYI I have not once supported new gun laws because the federal gun laws we already have on the books are adequate.

The Federal gun laws we have on the books are gun control and in violation of the 2nd Amendment and you openly support them and you've just stated that gun control, if enforced, works. You're a gun controller. Oh, sure, you're pro-gun, but you're certainly NOT pro-2nd-Amendment. You're an idiot if you think I'm going to fall for your lies.

You support gun control. In fact, you want existing gun control enforced. That you haven't yet openly supported new infringements on the right to keep and bear arms does not, in any way, alter the fact that you openly admit that you support the current infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.

If you don't see the hypocrisy in what you're saying, if you can't see that, in your heart, you support gun control, you're the idiot. You support the gun control you like and object to the controls you don't like. You can't have it both ways, though, the 2nd Amendment doesn't allow for some infringements. You're a gun controller; you're just in denial.

The SC Heller decision said we can regulate guns and that`s why you won`t see a gun vending machine in our schools. These unfortunate children are having their rights infringed.

 

[Blues Man]

It's gun control. Criminals are only controlled when in jail or prison. You pretend to be pro-gun, and support the 2nd Amendment but you're clearly anti-2nd-Amendment. If the old gun laws work then certainly more must work. All we need to do is create them and enforce them - and call it criminal control.

Read the links.

Project exile put criminals in federal prisons for breaking federal gun laws. There were no new gun laws passed.

And you're a ******* idiot if you think I am not pro 2nd amendment. And FYI I have not once supported new gun laws because the federal gun laws we already have on the books are adequate.

The Federal gun laws we have on the books are gun control and in violation of the 2nd Amendment and you openly support them and you've just stated that gun control, if enforced, works. You're a gun controller. Oh, sure, you're pro-gun, but you're certainly NOT pro-2nd-Amendment. You're an idiot if you think I'm going to fall for your lies.

You support gun control. In fact, you want existing gun control enforced. That you haven't yet openly supported new infringements on the right to keep and bear arms does not, in any way, alter the fact that you openly admit that you support the current infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.

If you don't see the hypocrisy in what you're saying, if you can't see that, in your heart, you support gun control, you're the idiot. You support the gun control you like and object to the controls you don't like. You can't have it both ways, though, the 2nd Amendment doesn't allow for some infringements. You're a gun controller; you're just in denial.

The SC Heller decision said we can regulate guns and that`s why you won`t see a gun vending machine in our schools. These unfortunate children are having their rights infringed.

Children have no gun rights