High capacity magazine in rampage was banned under Clinton-era law

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The point is you seem to see the possibility of crime as an inevitability.

I've never been the victim of a violent crime anywhere, ever. It's not something I need to have a contingency against.

I support your choice. I am pro-choice remember? I make no attempt to force you to make the same choices I do,

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's entirely irrelevant to what we've been talking about.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

He was standing in line when he began firing, so there were innocent bystanders all around him. While I enjoy a good western where a gunslinger is able to shoot a gun out of the hand of the bad guy, I also know that's Hollywood and not real life. I believe in our constitutional right to bear arms and am in favor of concealed weapon permits, but we've got to have reasonable gun laws to protect citizens from these kinds of mass shootings from happening. The assailant was shooting at random after hitting his initial targets. He was hoping to go down in a blaze of glory, but fortunately, no gunslingers happen to be shopping in that area that morning.

There's no rhyme or reason why anyone would need a high capacity magazine clip with 31 rounds, except out of convenience, especially since all the gun freaks here say that changing a magazine is pretty quick. And yet, here we had four very brave people stop the shooter from killing anyone else because he finally ran out of ammunition after firing off 31 consecutive rounds.

He did not pull his stunt at a Tea Party rally or a gun show. Get a clue. He went where there was a pretty good chance of no other guns being there. A Democrat Rally.

We create "safe zones" where no guns are allowed...like schools. Safe for who? Ask the students at Columbine or Virginia Tech who was safe?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Maybe you would like to see the potential lethality of weapons out there increased rather than decreased. Maybe we should have let this guy buy grenades also, maybe 50 caliber machine gun. Yes, 6 casualties would be better than 18! If you don't think so why not ask the families of casualties 7 through 18!

Wuld the people be any more dead with grenades? Why can anti-gun people never argue without going "nuclear", I expect to see that one in the next few posts..."Why don;lt we let everyone have a intercontinental ballistic missile"? Sheeesh.

The Heller and McDonald decisions are available for reading. They are pretty clear and concise. Amazing that people can somehow find where the right to have an abortion is protected in the constitution, but they just can't find that right to bear arms anywhere.

(for the record, I am pro-choice)

I know we have the 2nd amendment, whatever that vaguely worded sentence actually means. I wish we did not all have to worship at the altar of gun rights to the point of having to pay in the blood of innocents so that gun-owners will not have the slightest inconvenience whenever they feel the need to get off by squeezing out 31 rounds without pausing a few seconds to reload!

Read Heller and McDonald.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

ChiCom invaders? Are you serious? They are coming and you are going to stop them with your 31 round magazines. Better hope they don't get 32 round magazines!

Are you reduced to this that quickly? I am surprised. You are a Yooper with good taste in women. Go figure. I would expect this from emotionally charged people with no real knowledge of firearms. They run out of arguments fast and resort to making silly comments.

The gunman in this case shot the congresswoman with the first shot. Most of the rest of his bullets were harmless. He KILLS people and now you would debate how many bullets he can have in one magazine? This is just nonsense.

FYI, I think you know as well as I that no laws will change because of this because it is not sensible to fashion our laws to try and prevent what every wacko might do. None of us would want to live in such a place. In the end, nothing will change. THAT is why we have the 2nd Amendment. Our rights cannnot be subject to public opinion. It is the unpopular things that need protection, not the popular things.

Edited January 11, 2011 by Gary and Alla

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

It's not about convenience, it's about efficiency.

When those ChiCom bastards invade, do you want the weapons in the hands of the American resistance to fire off 1 round every hour or something? What the hell is wrong with you? I know this is tough but do try to keep some perspective on what this issue is really all about. Think of those evil ChiComs and what they'll do to your wife and baby!

Perhaps an illustration will sufficiently provoke your patriotic fervor, if plain logic does not.

I win.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You win when it comes to saying "i" in a sentence

[^_^ 5,021]

I win.

How? Are you a ChiCom sleeper agent?

[james&olya 1,121]

Wuld the people be any more dead with grenades? Why can anti-gun people never argue without going "nuclear", I expect to see that one in the next few posts..."Why don;lt we let everyone have a intercontinental ballistic missile"? Sheeesh.

Read Heller and McDonald.

Are you serious? Yes, there were many other people at that rally, people who are alive now that might be dead if this shooter had more lethality readily available! So yes, DUH, those people would be much more DEAD!

[^_^ 5,021]

Why can anti-gun people never argue without going "nuclear" ...

Because the Second Amendment makes no reference at all to guns. It does refer to arms. Arms in a contemporary context could very well include suitcase nukes and saran gas. And if not, why not?

[james&olya 1,121]

The gunman in this case shot the congresswoman with the first shot. Most of the rest of his bullets were harmless. He KILLS people and now you would debate how many bullets he can have in one magazine? This is just nonsense.

Maybe you didn't hear, she was only one of the woumded. The other bullets were NOT harmless! Six other people are DEAD! And another 11 were wounded! Nonsense? Not in my world!

[slim 1,530]

Are you serious? Yes, there were many other people at that rally, people who are alive now that might be dead if this shooter had more lethality readily available! So yes, DUH, those people would be much more DEAD!

So how did those guys kill all those people on Sept. 11th with those "not so lethal" boxcutters?

Maybe we should outlaw boxcutters. Or aircraft. Or hijacking aircraft with boxcutters. Or all of the above.

[Ban Hammer 13,520]

So how did those guys kill all those people on Sept. 11th with those "not so lethal" boxcutters?

Maybe we should outlaw boxcutters. Or aircraft. Or hijacking aircraft with boxcutters. Or all of the above.

outlaw tall buildings

[natty bumppo 297]

outlaw tall buildings

jet fuel too ....

then they can keep the big aluminum tubes on the ground and use them as homeless shelters

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Are you serious? Yes, there were many other people at that rally, people who are alive now that might be dead if this shooter had more lethality readily available! So yes, DUH, those people would be much more DEAD!

You do realize how many people in this country know how to make home made bombs, right? You do realize how many people NEVER use that knowledge, right?