Another case of Gun Control -Backfiring.

[rocks 494]

Because there is demand. They are fun to shoot on occasion.

Of course it is fun, that's why people like having guns. Why can't people be forced to change the magazine rather than have 30+ all in one go? As we discussed last night, if you are experienced it doesn't take long to switch them out.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Of course it is fun, that's why people like having guns. Why can't people be forced to change the magazine rather than have 30+ all in one go? As we discussed last night, if you are experienced it doesn't take long to switch them out.

Because some people find it fun to shoot fast and long. I'm not really one of those people. I shoot black powder more than anything, and I enjoy the full process of loading them, the smoke etc.

[MyLittlePony 340]

People who abuse the rights of gun ownership are to be locked up too.

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

I have justified my statements many many many times. You haven't justified anything, unless you want to count "because I want it" as a justification...

ah yes, you've justified your statements many times. that must be why i asked for specifics and never got all of my questions answered.

[rocks 494]

ah yes, you've justified your statements many times. that must be why i asked for specifics and never got all of my questions answered.

I have justified it, go back and read. You seem to have missed a lot of what I have said. What have you justified? You constantly repeat yourself but give no answer to the question of justification. You seem to have some kind of issue with me.

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

I have justified it, go back and read. You seem to have missed a lot of what I have said. What have you justified? You constantly repeat yourself but give no answer to the question of justification. You seem to have some kind of issue with me.

i'm tired of wasting my time when you make statements and then won't even define them further when asked.

[rocks 494]

i'm tired of wasting my time when you make statements and then won't even define them further when asked.

I'm tired of you hounding me constantly and refusing to answer a simple question...

[slim 1,525]

No one can explain it. All I'm asking for is a justification and there isn't one. All I get is a barrage of insults from right wingers.

Please read my post at the bottom of page 9.

Are you one of those folks who thinks the police and military should have all that stuff but not us "regular citizens?" If so, please explain why they "need" that stuff and we don't. Thanks in advance.

[rocks 494]

Please read my post at the bottom of page 9.

Are you one of those folks who thinks the police and military should have all that stuff but not us "regular citizens?" If so, please explain why they "need" that stuff and we don't. Thanks in advance.

I read that post. The constitution says that you have the right to bare arms, I don't think anyone is questioning that. I'm not at all suggesting outlawing guns or anything of the sort. However, you can defend yourself without an AK and without huge magazines.

I agree that the constitution needs to reflect the fact that we have the police and military to defend us, but I don't see that change happening anywhere in our future, do you? I also don't see there being a change in the weak background checks performed to purchase a weapon.

Obviously if someone wants to get a gun, they will get one. There are plenty of legal and illegal avenues to get guns so this wouldn't stop crime or mass shootings but it would certainly make it more difficult. That is unless you ask Ice-T, in which case apparently people just blow themselves up and it is just as easy as getting a gun from Academy.

[slim 1,525]

I read that post. The constitution says that you have the right to bare arms, I don't think anyone is questioning that. I'm not at all suggesting outlawing guns or anything of the sort.

Do you support a ban of certain weapons/capacities/etc.? Kind of sounds like you do. And, if so, then yes, you are suggesting outlawing guns.

However, you can defend yourself without an AK and without huge magazines.

As someone who's actually defended stuff I can tell you first-hand; it's a lot easier to defend yourself with an AK and huge magazine than a Glock with 10 rds.

Over 1,000,000 people live within walking distance of my house. At any given time there's a 3-day food supply for all of us. If for some reason there's an event where the electricity goes out for an extended period I believe all 1,000,000 of those people will get hungry. Many of them will be looking for food. Some of them will do whatever it takes to obtain the food. When those folks get hungry and desperate, I will have my AK-47... not a Glock.

"But slim, that'll never happen in America." ORLY? Did Hurricane Katrina show you nothing? That was a relatively small and relatively huge event all at the same time. At the very minimum, you should've learned a few basic things.

1. The government cannot protect everyone all the time.

2. The government may not be there for a few days.

3. When the government finally shows up, they'll want you to do things their way.

I too hope it never happens. I can't imagine an America where police officers and National Guardsmen come to my house and forcibly remove my firearms - especially when I might need them to protect myself from looters and other criminals. But to say it won't happen (again) is silly. To say it can't happen on a wider scale is to deny logic and reason. We have earthquakes here. We have tornadoes and winter storms and all types of other possible causes of stoppage to the electric grid. Heck, today the heat index is 105F. That's gotta be taxing on the delivery systems.

If, for some crazy reason it does happen, I won't "need" an AK-47. I'll "have" an AK-47.

Call me what you will but the 2nd Amendment isn't about duck hunting. And it's not all about concealed carry encounters either. Sure, I'm not packing my Draco AK-47 pistol (which is perfectly legal for me to carry here in Ohio with my CHL - how stupid is that law!) when I go to the theater. Don't "need" it. But I'm darn sure packing my Para Ordnance P-14 45 loaded up with 15 hollow points. I hope I never "need" that thing either but I carry it all the same.

The point is there's a different purpose for using different arms. Here in America, we have the responsibility to defend ourselves (family, friends, neighbors, homes, etc.) against everything from the tyrant to the marauder and if we rely solely on other people to do so, we're nothing more than servants or the employers of tyrants. Either way, it's not American!

I agree that the constitution needs to reflect the fact that we have the police and military to defend us, but I don't see that change happening anywhere in our future, do you?

What do you mean by the police "protecting" you? Do they walk with you like they walk with Bloomberg? Do they sit outside your door?

Same with the military? Are they "protecting" our way of life in Iraq? Maybe Afghanistan? Maybe even Djibouti?

I'm amazed that people think "protection" comes from someone else with a gun. The fact is we all protect ourselves. Sometimes with guns, sometimes just by making smart decisions and doing stuff like going to work, paying bills, mowing the grass on Saturdays. That's what protects our way of life. Not some dude in Afghanistan. Not some guy driving a car around all night.

I also don't see there being a change in the weak background checks performed to purchase a weapon.

That NICS check is one of the biggest wastes of money in government. I've had a gun on me while being denied the right to buy another. Did that keep someone safe?

The check does nothing but add another layer of bureaucracy to the government. It is not illegal to purchase guns without a background check (from private citizens) yet buying guns from a business requires a background check. Why?

And how does that even remotely deter crime? It's about as silly as hanging a sign up that says, "NO GUNS."

Obviously if someone wants to get a gun, they will get one. There are plenty of legal and illegal avenues to get guns so this wouldn't stop crime or mass shootings but it would certainly make it more difficult.

See above. It's a complete waste of money and a violation of our constitutional rights.

That is unless you ask Ice-T, in which case apparently people just blow themselves up and it is just as easy as getting a gun from Academy. =

Ice T's point is valid. We can outlaw guns all we want but people will just use another method of mayhem.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the only arms you should be allowed to bear are the ones that were around when the Declaration of Independence was signed.

[slim 1,525]

I think the only arms you should be allowed to bear are the ones that were around when the Declaration of Independence was signed.

IF that's all the state has... I'm fine with that.

People forget the colonials were evenly matched to their army. Not just small arms, but cannons and bayonets and any manner of things.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-says-country-doesn-t-gun-laws-233842060.html

Romney rejects calls for new gun laws after Colorado shooting

By Holly Bailey, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 2 hrs 55 mins ago

LONDON—Mitt Romney rejected calls for new gun laws in the aftermath of last week's movie theater shooting in Colorado, insisting new legislation would not have prevented the tragedy.

In an interview with NBC's Brian Williams, the presumptive Republican nominee pointed to the fact that James E. Holmes, the suspect in last Friday's shooting, was "building bombs"—even though it was illegal.

"A lot of what this young man did was clearly against the law," Romney told NBC. "But the fact that it was against the law did not prevent it from happening."

Asked if he had a "problem" with individuals being able to purchase large amounts of ammunition via the internet, Romney said he didn't think it was possible to "prevent people who want to provide harm from being able to purchase things to carry out that harm."

"What I wanna do is find the people who represent a danger to America and find them and keep them from having the capacity to use or buy things that could… hurt other people," Romney said.

The GOP candidate argued that "changing the heart of the American people" may be the only key to cracking down on gun violence. He described himself as a supporter of the Second Amendment right to bear arms, but acknowledged he had differences with the National Rifle Association—though he didn't name a specific issue where he disagreed with the gun rights group.

"Their agenda is not entirely identical with my own," Romney said. "I don't know if I line up 100 percent with… almost anybody."

[justashooter 430]

I read that post. The constitution says that you have the right to bare arms, I don't think anyone is questioning that. I'm not at all suggesting outlawing guns or anything of the sort. However, you can defend yourself without an AK and without huge magazines.

SCOTUS has already determined that no class of firearms in common use may be regulated in contradiction to the second amendment purpose, which is to provide that citizens have weaponry equivalent to that of the standing army.

get some education before you post.

[rocks 494]

SCOTUS has already determined that no class of firearms in common use may be regulated in contradiction to the second amendment purpose, which is to provide that citizens have weaponry equivalent to that of the standing army.

get some education before you post.

How about you read the post before being rude? Get some education yourself.