Opinions/Discussions on Guns

[Downinthebend]

The CT shooter just taped his spare clips to the rifle. So making them shorter wouldn't have stopped him from shooting that much, assuming he had more tape.

So what I'm to understand is that we need to ban tape? Or at least make it hard to acquire. Lets start with banning that extra-strength stuff, then we can move on to the rest of it, "ease" it in you know?

Why don't we just make it illegal to tape clips to rifles? that way criminals won't do it.!

OR we could just ban all guns with tape on them, yess? or have tape-free zones?

 

[phgreek]

Every week I volunteer at my kids elementary school. This week I can no longer walk into the school. I must ring a bell, wait for it to be answered, and submit to a strip search in front of the whole faculty, each holding a snarling attack dog. Did I tell you about the barbed wire?

The first thing that was removed was my kids right to a childhood. So if I appear to be less than cordial to a bunch of buffoons that exclusively want to use statistics to make their political cases, instead of use their heads, pardon me in advance.

The big money men will just move the funds out of guns into something else, hang gliders, the newest designer drug, who knows?

I know...I got the letter, and the heads up from the school administrators. From the moment my kids enter school they are on lockdown...and I am no longer a dad, but a potential whack job. And yes I gotta be let in.

I guess I'm ok with precaution, but between the pedophiles, drug dealers, and now crazed gunman fears...our kids are having 1/10th the childhood we had.

Yes liberty can be under attack by legislation...but our own fears too. It is the same discussion I think...how much risk do you take for your kid to have a childhood...don't know the answer to that.

 

[BobD]

All this talk about the "amount" of firearms is senseless.
..

[/IMG]

Unless they skew the message?

 

[Downinthebend]

Unless they skew the message?

What message?

 

[Irish Houstonian]

So what I'm to understand is that we need to ban tape? Or at least make it hard to acquire. Lets start with banning that extra-strength stuff, then we can move on to the rest of it, "ease" it in you know?

Why don't we just make it illegal to tape clips to rifles? that way criminals won't do it.!

OR we could just ban all guns with tape on them, yess? or have tape-free zones?

You could require that all clips be so magnetically charged that it's impossible to keep them within a few feet of each other.

Might make them a bit hard to ship, so there would no doubt be kinks to work out...

 

[Grahambo]

If criminals have stuff like that and police need it for defense against them, why wouldn't that "need" extend to me?

Even beyond that, I don't need a nice computer, why isn't it illegal? Its a waste (not needed) of plastic and metal. The burden of legislation is on the criminalizing not the "need" of something.

Where are you from? Not saying this in a demeaning manner. Really curious what state you're from. Are you prior military? Police?

I don't think you can take a nice computer and compare it to 100 round magazines or assault rifles..just me though.

 

[Downinthebend]

Where are you from? Not saying this in a demeaning manner. Really curious what state you're from. Are you prior military? Police?

I don't think you can take a nice computer and compare it to 100 round magazines or assault rifles..just me though.

Indiana, No, No.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Where are you from? Not saying this in a demeaning manner. Really curious what state you're from. Are you prior military? Police?

I don't think you can take a nice computer and compare it to 100 round magazines or assault rifles..just me though.

I think he's just saying that the common argument "you don't need so much ___, so let's ban it" can apply to anything. For example, nobody should "need" a car that can go faster than 70 mph, because nowhere in the U.S. would going that fast be legal. But the whole point of living in a free society is so that the state doesn't tell you how much you "need" something -- you get to decide for yourself.

 

[BobD]

They are what they are. They look great, in fact.

Considering how many guys are on the streets......



Glad you followed up with a stellar comment, though. Good argument.

Now I see the problem, we're talking guns and you just want to have guys....knock yourself out, I'm ok with your type.

 

[ND NYC]

I'm curious, for anyone who owns a gun/guns on here, what is the primary reason you own them?:

A) enjoyment: hunting/target shooting etc

B) protection/self defense from criminals

C) protection from the US Govt (armed forces, police)

i assume most will say A or B...or A and B.

But i get the sense from some of the posts on here that C although considered by most rational people is never going to happen is the primary basis for the staunch
2nd amendment defenders.

 

[Downinthebend]

I'm curious, for anyone who owns a gun/guns on here, what is the primary reason you own them?:

A) enjoyment: hunting/target shooting etc

B) protection/self defense from criminals

C) protection from the US Govt (armed forces, police)

i assume most will say A or B...or A and B.

But i get the sense from some of the posts on here that C although considered by most rational people is never going to happen is the primary basis for the staunch
2nd amendment defenders.

A (paper), B, C.

 

[GO IRISH!!!]

Where are you from? Not saying this in a demeaning manner. Really curious what state you're from. Are you prior military? Police?

I don't think you can take a nice computer and compare it to 100 round magazines or assault rifles..just me though.

Dear Lord! Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for using the correct term "magazines" instead of "clips"! Good God that was starting to really bug me, but I didn't want to go all "Dshans" with a correction post.

Ooops! Guess I just did...mea culpa.

 

[phgreek]

The CT shooter just taped his spare clips to the rifle. So making them shorter wouldn't have stopped him from shooting that much, assuming he had more tape.

I usually agree with most everything you say...but not today.

I disagree...each clip change creates an opportunity...shooter is vulnerable...slows the process. As well if they don't get banned entirely, I'd be fine with new assault guns requiring cocking mechanisms after every 5 or so...and a clip change mechanism that requires both hands...slow it down...make it unweildy. It does matter...each change introduces a chance for mechanical failure as well as intervention...

Look I'm a gun guy...but being able to shoot w/o interruption for 30, 50, 100 rounds...I can't back that. I never could see the utility in that it can't promote good marksmanship...but who am I to say? I just know when people go nuts, I'd like the rest of us to have alot of opportunities to stop them.

I will fight for the interpretation of the 2nd amendment that stands today for as long as I am alive...but sometimes we need to exercise some self restraint, and do some things that make sense despite the intentions of those on the other side of the issue who think banning firearms is the solution.

 

[GO IRISH!!!]

I'm curious, for anyone who owns a gun/guns on here, what is the primary reason you own them?:

A) enjoyment: hunting/target shooting etc

B) protection/self defense from criminals

C) protection from the US Govt (armed forces, police)

i assume most will say A or B...or A and B.

But i get the sense from some of the posts on here that C although considered by most rational people is never going to happen is the primary basis for the staunch
2nd amendment defenders.

Definitely A & B.

I don't feel "C" is a reason for me, personally. However, I wouldn't criticize someone that feels that way and has that as their justification for a need to own guns.

 

[Grahambo]

Indiana, No, No.

Like I said, just curious. You seem to have a very set in stone approach to guns which is why I was wondering.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I usually agree with most everything you say...but not today.

I disagree...each clip change creates an opportunity...shooter is vulnerable...slows the process. As well if they don't get banned entirely, I'd be fine with new assault guns requiring cocking mechanisms after every 5 or so...and a clip change mechanism that requires both hands...slow it down...make it unweildy. It does matter...each change introduces a chance for mechanical failure as well as intervention...

Look I'm a gun guy...but being able to shoot w/o interruption for 30, 50, 100 rounds...I can't back that. I never could see the utility in that it can't promote good marksmanship...but who am I to say? I just know when people go nuts, I'd like the rest of us to have alot of opportunities to stop them.

I will fight for the interpretation of the 2nd amendment that stands today for as long as I am alive...but sometimes we need to exercise some self restraint, and do some things that make sense despite the intentions of those on the other side of the issue who think banning firearms is the solution.

Jared Loughner used a high capacity magazine on Gabby Giffords and the crowd in Tucson. He was apprehended when he finally needed to stop and reload.

 

[phork]

If criminals have stuff like that and police need it for defense against them, why wouldn't that "need" extend to me?

Even beyond that, I don't need a nice computer, why isn't it illegal? Its a waste (not needed) of plastic and metal. The burden of legislation is on the criminalizing not the "need" of something.

Are you really going there?

I think he's just saying that the common argument "you don't need so much ___, so let's ban it" can apply to anything. For example, nobody should "need" a car that can go faster than 70 mph, because nowhere in the U.S. would going that fast be legal. But the whole point of living in a free society is so that the state doesn't tell you how much you "need" something -- you get to decide for yourself.

SMH. Deciding for yourselves is not working out so well is it.

 

[phgreek]

Jared Loughner used a high capacity magazine on Gabby Giffords and the crowd in Tucson. He was apprehended when he finally needed to stop and reload.

exactly the example I was thinking about...as well as the willingness of the Conn. teachers to launch themselves. People seem to get in it...lets give 'em a fighting chance.

 

[Downinthebend]

Are you really going there?



SMH. Deciding for yourselves is not working out so well is it.

Do you have any responses to those comments?

 

[ND NYC]

Wonder how many criminals turned theirs in?

That is the point. But let's make sure all the responsible people get rid of theirs first, THEN i'm sure the bad guys will follow suit.

actaully they are out of the hands of cop killers Pat. if you even bothered to read the article you would have read the following:

"While details on the possible criminal history of the weapons were unavailable, it was revealed Tuesday by the attorney general that many of the “long guns” turned in to authorities over the weekend had been used to kill Camden city police officers.Among the arsenal presented in a press conference were five fully-automatic assault weapons, including two Intratec TEC-DC9 — commonly known as a TEC-9 — and an Uzi 9mm submachine gun.Also collected were two Chinese SKS assault rifles — one with bayonet — a 10-gauge double-barreled elephant shotgun, hundreds of semi-automatic weapons"

if you know anything about Camden you would know that that town getting these off the streets cant be anything but good for public safety for citizens and law enforcement.

some of these guns were stored by criminals in certain spots all over town that they knew would be there when they needed them. once people knew they could get some cash they swooped them up and turned them in and got them away from the criminals, i.e. cop killers.

i guess since this means "less guns" out there...you can't see something like this as a positive step for public safety. most will.

 

[4irishnation]

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.”
― Adolf Hitler

.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Personally, when I get back to the states, I'm going to start choking out or calling the cops on anyone I see carrying who acts even a little bit suspiciously. Once someone has started shooting, it's too late so people carrying weapons forces me to either be proactive or pretend that a loaded weapon is not a threat.

In fact, that would be a good grassroots movement: call the police on anyone you know is carrying a concealed weapon. If you feel threatened, you're completely within your rights to do this.

 

[Downinthebend]

.

Godwin's Law!!!

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Godwin's Law!!!

First one to mention Hitler loses. It's the next logical step after Godwin.

 

[4irishnation]

Godwin's Law!!!

Figured after 530 posts in this thread and not one of us has changed the way we think, what the he11 somebody had to!!!

 

[brandonnash]

I'm curious, for anyone who owns a gun/guns on here, what is the primary reason you own them?:

A) enjoyment: hunting/target shooting etci

B) protection/self defense from criminals

C) protection from the US Govt (armed forces, police)

i assume most will say A or B...or A and B.

But i get the sense from some of the posts on here that C although considered by most rational people is never going to happen is the primary basis for the staunch
2nd amendment defenders.

Most everyone will say A and B but C should be changed around to include an apocalyptic type situation. With the recent missle development in north Korea along with the huge economic boost in china along with their stockpile of nuclear weapons I see it as a real possibility of them trying to soften us with nukes then trying to invade. If I had the money I would absolutely stockpile as many guns and as much ammo as possible. 100 round mags would be on my list specifically for this reason. While its unlikely to happen in the next few years, and maybe not even in our generation, but at some point some country will challenge us. Just like a quote from one of my favorite movies. "Two biggest kids on the block. Sooner or later they're gonna fight."

 

[brandonnash]

First one to mention Hitler loses. It's the next logical step after Godwin.

And one other thing. Hitler ...just kidding.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

ND NYC mine are A B
But C was the reason we have that right.
While I believe C would never happen and at most be ineffective. There are 300 million plus in our country figure if even a 3rd of that ever said no more and rose up quantity has a quality all its own.

 

[Downinthebend]

Most everyone will say A and B but C should be changed around to include an apocalyptic type situation. With the recent missle development in south Korea along with the huge economic boost in china along with their stockpile of nuclear weapons I see it as a real possibility of them trying to soften us with nukes then trying to invade. If I had the money I would absolutely stockpile as many guns and as much ammo as possible. 100 round mags would be on my list specifically for this reason. While its unlikely to happen in the next few years, and maybe not even in our generation, but at some point some country will challenge us. Just like a quote from one of my favorite movies. "Two biggest kids on the block. Sooner or later they're gonna fight."

Do you mean North Korea or is there something I missed about South Korea (Note, I'm not too informed about asian news)

 

[cody1smith]

I usually agree with most everything you say...but not today.

I disagree...each clip change creates an opportunity...shooter is vulnerable...slows the process. As well if they don't get banned entirely, I'd be fine with new assault guns requiring cocking mechanisms after every 5 or so...and a clip change mechanism that requires both hands...slow it down...make it unweildy. It does matter...each change introduces a chance for mechanical failure as well as intervention...

Look I'm a gun guy...but being able to shoot w/o interruption for 30, 50, 100 rounds...I can't back that. I never could see the utility in that it can't promote good marksmanship...but who am I to say? I just know when people go nuts, I'd like the rest of us to have alot of opportunities to stop them.

I will fight for the interpretation of the 2nd amendment that stands today for as long as I am alive...but sometimes we need to exercise some self restraint, and do some things that make sense despite the intentions of those on the other side of the issue who think banning firearms is the solution.

Really who fired more shots/killed more people in the columbine shooting?
A) the guy with the tec-9 and 1 52 round drum and 1 32 round mag and 1 28 round mag
B) the guy with a 9mm carbile and 13 ten round mags