How do you feel about guns?

[68Firebird]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

The purpose may be inconsequential to you, but it is a major factor in the argument.

An automobile used safely, as intended, harms no one. A combat weapon used safely, as intended, kills humans.

Our government, by allowing people to own fire arms is NOT intending for them to be used to kill people. That is not the intended use of gun ownership. It could not be, because murder or even assault with a deadly weapon - such as a gun - is a serious criminal offense.

"Safely" & "kills humans" in the same sentence? Guns, when used safely - DON'T kill people.... unless someone is breaking the law. Our society says that guns are safe as long as they are used within the confines of the law and our laws strictly define what is considered safe. Same thing with motor vehicles. However, when used OUTSIDE the law, motor vehicles kill more (roughly by 1000) people annually in the US - and injure many more, as well as cause much more property $ damage - than guns.

It is a HUMAN BEHAVIOR problem. As is my original point: Crazy Control > Gun Control.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by 68Firebird

Our government, by allowing people to own fire arms is NOT intending for them to be used to kill people. That is not the intended use of gun ownership. It could not be, because murder or even assault with a deadly weapon - such as a gun - is a serious criminal offense.

"Safely" & "kills humans" in the same sentence? Guns, when used safely - DON'T kill people.... unless someone is breaking the law. Our society says that guns are safe as long as they are used within the confines of the law and our laws strictly define what is considered safe. Same thing with motor vehicles. However, when used OUTSIDE the law, motor vehicles kill more (roughly by 1000) people annually in the US - and injure many more, as well as cause much more property $ damage - than guns.

It is a HUMAN BEHAVIOR problem. As is my original point: Crazy Control > Gun Control.

A combat weapon is designed to kill humans. Therefore, used as intended, kills humans. A soldier in combat is trained to use their firearm safely to minimize "friendly fire" as well as weapon malfunctions and "accidental discharges" (I forget the actual appropriate term). They use their firearm safely, but it still results in the death of a human being if used properly. That's because the intended use of a combat weapon is such.

Now, you are correct, using these weapons as intended is illegal. This is the crux of my argument. Weapons designed for military use are intended to be used in an activity that is illegal for civilians. This is why I do not see why they should be so readily available for untraceable purchase by anyone over 18 (or 21, depending on the state). They are not hunting rifles, they are not target rifles, they are combat rifles.

My argument is, as I have stated many times, not a reactionary one. It has nothing to do with mass shootings, nothing to do with street violence. It has to do with common sense. I've had this stance for years, and it is one I've had growing up around firearms all my life. Hunting at an early age, shooting competitively, teaching others how to shoot, etc. So, using the whole "it won't make us safer", "it's a human behavior problem", or whatever argument you so choose is nothing but a red herring to me.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by 68Firebird

It's not a red herring. What is the point of gun control? To save lives, right? That's the big deal. LIVES WILL BE SAVED IF WE MAKE SOMETHING ILLEGAL OR HARD TO GET.

THAT, my friend, is the red herring. We, as a society, need to focus on human behaviors, not inadimant objects.

Which brings me to why I brought up cars and the internet. If your goal by limiting fire arm equipment is to save lives, why start with that? It represents such a teeny tiny sliver of pie. Why not start with something that, when used outside the legal limit, is the cause of more lost life, injury and harm?

- You would save more lives per year (and certainly more injury) by championing speed limiters on cars. And then, after you do that, you can start telling restaurants what types of food they have to serve on their menus. Obesity, after all, kills way more people than guns in the US per year.

My point is, why do YOU get to tell ME what I can and can't have and at what point do you have to stop doing so? And, better yet... when do I get to tell YOU what you can and can't have?

And, yes, making class 3 restrictions would essentially take away the general public's ability to have these things.

Again, our country has a behavior problem. Why is no one wanting to fix that? The pendulum on how we deal with the mentally has swung too far the other direction. Before proper medicine, science, and study had been developed our country used to take our mentally ill and institutionalize them. It was cruel and ineffective. Now, our mentally ill have almost no regulation with very little government funding and are left to fend for their own, just like a normal minded citizen. THIS is our problem. Not extended magazines for guns. This guy attacked kindergartners. Even with 5 round magazines he could have pulled off the same results.




This is where you are going to an extreme to make some sort of point, but I fail to see it. I also can't legally own rocket propelled grenades and a launcher. I also can't own land mines, I also can't own a Humvee with a full auto 50 cal on top, I also can't own a fully armed F-18 fighter jet. Or an operational atomic bomb. And on and on and on.

The slide down a slope won't stop. Look at when income taxes were introduced. The GOV is still working hard to take as much money as they can from citizens and have written themselves laws to allow them to essentially do take whatever they want whenever they want. It just takes time for creep to happen. My worry is that once a door is breached, it will not be shut, particularly since this deals with our Constitutional Rights. It's how people gain control over one another.

Well, someone is obviously telling someone else when they can and cannot purchase a M240B. So you explain it to me.

Why do you think talking about owning a FN MAG is extreme compared to an AR 15. Both weapons were designed for the military for combat operations? The US Army designates the FN MAG the M240 and the AR 15 the M16. The intended purpose of each weapon is to kill enemy soldiers. So why is asking why I can't own a M240B "extreme," but owning an AR 15 is perfectly acceptable? Is it the rate of fire? If it is, then explain why the features which increase the rate of fire of a FN MAG are extreme, but the features which increase the rate of fire of an AR 15 are acceptible.

If the Sandy Hook shooter had a 5 round magazine as opposed to a 30 round magazine he would need to change magazines five times in order to fire the same number of rounds. That's five opportunities for an unarmed teacher(s) to rush him while he was changing magazines and possibly make a difference. I'm telling you, as a former professional Infantryman who held every position from rifleman to platoon sergeant, magazine changes make a difference. There is no amount of obfuscation that will change my mind based upon years of experience. Magazine changes and maintaining the rate of fire so your lethality isn't diminished is something that gets harped on during every after action review.

According to Mitt Romney, 47% of people don't pay taxes courtesy of exemptions, deductions, and loop holes provided by the federal government. I'd like to point out that includes most military service members.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by 68Firebird

I'm sorry, but abuse is abuse. The purpose of a gun is inconsequential to me, same thing with an automobile. The end result is that when used unsafely there is an increased chance of loss of life or serious injury.

More people are killed and injured annually by abusing speeding laws than abusing guns. If the end result is saving lives, why is no one demanding speed limiters on cars before limiting guns?

If the purpose of a gun is inconsequential to you, subsequently the purpose of a gun control law should also be inconsequential to you because the purpose of something doesn't matter to you.

More people spend more time using automobiles each day than people do using guns. In order to operate an automobile, you need to take a class, get a learner's permit, and pass a written and practical examination in order to get a license to drive. In order to operate a firearm you just need the cash. You don't think this is an area which needs improvement?

Why do we have speed limits to begin with? Why can't you drive high performance cars designed for racing such as those used in NHRA, NASCAR, and Formula 1 on the highway?

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by 68Firebird

Our government, by allowing people to own fire arms is NOT intending for them to be used to kill people. That is not the intended use of gun ownership. It could not be, because murder or even assault with a deadly weapon - such as a gun - is a serious criminal offense.

"Safely" & "kills humans" in the same sentence? Guns, when used safely - DON'T kill people.... unless someone is breaking the law. Our society says that guns are safe as long as they are used within the confines of the law and our laws strictly define what is considered safe. Same thing with motor vehicles. However, when used OUTSIDE the law, motor vehicles kill more (roughly by 1000) people annually in the US - and injure many more, as well as cause much more property $ damage - than guns.

It is a HUMAN BEHAVIOR problem. As is my original point: Crazy Control > Gun Control.

Read the Bill of Rights.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

At the time this was written, militias were an important part of the national defense. As part of the national defense, militias were called upon to act as combat units. Thus members of the militia needed firearms so they could kill the soldiers of invading countries.

Not only did they intend for those firearms to kill, they were depending upon it.

[silenetwolf]

Originally Posted by x_Bengals_x

With mass shootings getting more and more common have they changed your stance on guns one way or the other? I've always wanted a gun thinking it was important for the home, I carry one just about every day at work but was never able to convince my wife to let us have one. She has changed her stance on guns and I was wondering if anyone else has as well.

I see a lot of people are turning in and getting rid of guns now but this has made us ready to go buy one.

I am a staunch believer in the 2nd amendment, but it is flawed. The 2nd amendment was adopted in 1791, long before there were automatic and semi-automatic weapons. An AR14 or 15, an Uzi 9mm does not belong in the hands of civilians. The should only used by the military and the SWAT units. Those types of weapons serve no purpose for hunting, and in fact are illegal to hunt with in many states.

There needs to be a compromise, the 2nd amendment stays, however automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be excluded from the amendment. If you want to shoot those types of weapons, then join the military.

[Benton]

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

I am a staunch believer in the 2nd amendment, but it is flawed. The 2nd amendment was adopted in 1791, long before there were automatic and semi-automatic weapons. An AR14 or 15, an Uzi 9mm does not belong in the hands of civilians. The should only used by the military and the SWAT units. Those types of weapons serve no purpose for hunting, and in fact are illegal to hunt with in many states.

There needs to be a compromise, the 2nd amendment stays, however automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be excluded from the amendment. If you want to shoot those types of weapons, then join the military.

I agree, but the point of Second wasn't to allow people to hunt. It was to allow people to oppose their government, or at least give the government something to consider before acting against the people's interest.

The problem comes in that whack jobs with muskets in the 1700's didn't create violence in schools, and, of course, I doubt they considered the military having the ability to turn a house to dust with a vehicle mounted weapon.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Benton

I agree, but the point of Second wasn't to allow people to hunt. It was to allow people to oppose their government, or at least give the government something to consider before acting against the people's interest.

The problem comes in that whack jobs with muskets in the 1700's didn't create violence in schools, and, of course, I doubt they considered the military having the ability to turn a house to dust with a vehicle mounted weapon.

We've covered this a number of times, though. the restriction of those weapons would hold no bearing on the ability of the civilian population to oppose the government.

[silenetwolf]

Originally Posted by Benton

I agree, but the point of Second wasn't to allow people to hunt. It was to allow people to oppose their government, or at least give the government something to consider before acting against the people's interest.

The problem comes in that whack jobs with muskets in the 1700's didn't create violence in schools, and, of course, I doubt they considered the military having the ability to turn a house to dust with a vehicle mounted weapon.

As far as opposing the government is concerned, that is what voting and impeachment are for. With the military we have today, from the reserves to the national guard to the regular military, the civilian population could not seriously think it could over throw the government with force.

That is the problem with a number of the amendments, they are old and out dated. I seriously believe that they need to be looked at and brought up to current times.

[Whatever]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

No argument can be made except for history. I've googled "history of the ar 15" for you and you can read page after page of how Eugene Stoner developed the AR 15 for the US Army designed for soldiers to hunt and kill other soldiers. If it is a hunting rifle, it is meant to hunt humans.

http://www.google.com/search?source=....1.9O5X8d4rjF4

As I've previously explained, you can fire military 5.56 rounds with a AR 15 chambered for .223 civilian rounds.



An excerpt from the link...



Currently commercial AR 15s are available in a variety of chambers for civilian purchase including 5.56. Just look at Colt's own magazine.

No argument can be made because the weapons are not the same internally, as I've explained. The current AR-15 is different internally than the original design that was purchased by Colt and renamed the M16. If you continue to try and make that argument, it's akin to saying nobody should be allowed to own a Jeep Wrangler because it is a "vehicle designed for combat."

There are indivduals who fire 5.56mm NATO rounds through AR-15's chambered for Remington .223 rounds, however it is not the recommedation of the factory, as it can result in catastrophic failure. Certainly, it is splitting hairs, but RhythmicGeek's entire argument centers around the INTENT of an inanimate object. The typical AR-15 available for sale to civilians is not INTENDED to fire 5.56mm NATO round. They are not INTENDED to fire millitary ammunition.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Whatever

No argument can be made because the weapons are not the same internally, as I've explained. The current AR-15 is different internally than the original design that was purchased by Colt and renamed the M16. If you continue to try and make that argument, it's akin to saying nobody should be allowed to own a Jeep Wrangler because it is a "vehicle designed for combat."

There are indivduals who fire 5.56mm NATO rounds through AR-15's chambered for Remington .223 rounds, however it is not the recommedation of the factory, as it can result in catastrophic failure. Certainly, it is splitting hairs, but RhythmicGeek's entire argument centers around the INTENT of an inanimate object. The typical AR-15 available for sale to civilians is not INTENDED to fire 5.56mm NATO round. They are not INTENDED to fire millitary ammunition.

The internal components and the caliber fired make no difference to the overall design of the weapon. So much of the AR-15 is designed for combat, some internal changes do not overhaul the entire design.

[Whatever]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

A combat weapon is designed to kill humans. Therefore, used as intended, kills humans. A soldier in combat is trained to use their firearm safely to minimize "friendly fire" as well as weapon malfunctions and "accidental discharges" (I forget the actual appropriate term). They use their firearm safely, but it still results in the death of a human being if used properly. That's because the intended use of a combat weapon is such.

Now, you are correct, using these weapons as intended is illegal. This is the crux of my argument. Weapons designed for military use are intended to be used in an activity that is illegal for civilians. This is why I do not see why they should be so readily available for untraceable purchase by anyone over 18 (or 21, depending on the state). They are not hunting rifles, they are not target rifles, they are combat rifles.

My argument is, as I have stated many times, not a reactionary one. It has nothing to do with mass shootings, nothing to do with street violence. It has to do with common sense. I've had this stance for years, and it is one I've had growing up around firearms all my life. Hunting at an early age, shooting competitively, teaching others how to shoot, etc. So, using the whole "it won't make us safer", "it's a human behavior problem", or whatever argument you so choose is nothing but a red herring to me.

The worldwide standard for an "assault rifle," is select-fire weapon capable of burst and/or fully automatic fire that use an intermediate cartridge and detachable magazines. The AR-15 being sold for civilian use is not classifiable as an assault rifle, as it is not capable of burst or fully automatic fire. It's .223 caliber is also too small for it to be classified as a "battle rifle," such as the M14.

The US and other countries went away from the "battle rifle" concept that was utilized in older combat weapons such as the M1 Garand based on the findings of WW1 and WW2 that in combat, whoever had the highest rate of fire was likely to win. Older millitary rifles used heavier, more powerful rounds, with the thinking that range and increased stopping power were the most advantagious traits to have, which proved false over studies. When the US commissioned the M16, they wanted an automatic weapon with a small cartridge to reduce recoil, sacrificing stopping power for the increased rate of fire that studies proved was most important.

Now, in the case of the AR-15, it lacks the stopping power of older battle rifles, and it lacks the rate of fire of modern assault rifles. It is not designed for combat. If it were a modern firearm designed for combat, then it would be likely be capable of burst fire and/or automatic fire. If it wasn't, then it would at the very least be chambered to fire a heavier round with superior stopping power. There isn't a modern millitary out there that uses a semi-automatic weapon firing such a small cartridge.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Whatever

The worldwide standard for an "assault rifle," is select-fire weapon capable of burst and/or fully automatic fire that use an intermediate cartridge and detachable magazines. The AR-15 being sold for civilian use is not classifiable as an assault rifle, as it is not capable of burst or fully automatic fire. It's .223 caliber is also too small for it to be classified as a "battle rifle," such as the M14.

The US and other countries went away from the "battle rifle" concept that was utilized in older combat weapons such as the M1 Garand based on the findings of WW1 and WW2 that in combat, whoever had the highest rate of fire was likely to win. Older millitary rifles used heavier, more powerful rounds, with the thinking that range and increased stopping power were the most advantagious traits to have, which proved false over studies. When the US commissioned the M16, they wanted an automatic weapon with a small cartridge to reduce recoil, sacrificing stopping power for the increased rate of fire that studies proved was most important.

Now, in the case of the AR-15, it lacks the stopping power of older battle rifles, and it lacks the rate of fire of modern assault rifles. It is not designed for combat. If it were a modern firearm designed for combat, then it would be likely be capable of burst fire and/or automatic fire. If it wasn't, then it would at the very least be chambered to fire a heavier round with superior stopping power. There isn't a modern millitary out there that uses a semi-automatic weapon firing such a small cartridge.

So you are stating that a weapon designed for combat, then stripped of something that is not even used in combat on a regular basis by the soldiers it is designed for, is no longer a weapon designed for combat?

[Whatever]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

So you are stating that a weapon designed for combat, then stripped of something that is not even used in combat on a regular basis by the soldiers it is designed for, is no longer a weapon designed for combat?

Different war, different circumstances. The US millitary dropped fully automatic fire due to the fact that soldiers would simply hold their guns over their heads and empty their magazines "blind firiing" if they panicked in Vietnam. They would frag their own squadmates, at times, doing that. They dropped down to 3 round burst, as the troops were taught to only fire 3 round bursts even on full-auto. However, even in the millitary today, many soldiers use the three round burst setting for sweeping buildings and supression fire. The modern US millitary is also better trained than the draftees we sent to war in 'nam. You're also dealing with jungle warfare vs. desert warfare. In the jungle, it was much easier for the enemy to hide and get into close quarters, where auto/burst fire is an advantage, because of the dense foliage of the jungle. In the desert, firefights tend to take place over longer ranges, where the increased accuracy of semi-auto is more important.

You can argue the intended use of the civilian model AR-15's in circles forever. It is ultimately an opinion. Your opinion is that it is designed for combat, mine is that it isn't. However, the rub when it comes to talk of banning the AR-15 is doing so is based on your opinion. You're proposing a legislation that takes something enjoyable away from hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of law abiding citizens, when there is emperical proof that pretty much all experts agree upon that banning it and other similar weapons has absolutely no affect on violent crime rates in this country on way or another. Not only that, but you're going to put a lot of people who have jobs manufacturing them out of a job

This isn't even a quandary of gun owner's rights vs. public safety, as statistics show that the legislation doesn't do anything to make people safer. What it comes down to is your opinion that people should not be able to own AR-15's, and if that's all you have, then that's not a reason to pass a law that limits the freedoms of others. So, I simply agree to disagree with your opinion.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Whatever

You can argue the intended use of the civilian model AR-15's in circles forever. It is ultimately an opinion. Your opinion is that it is designed for combat, mine is that it isn't. However, the rub when it comes to talk of banning the AR-15 is doing so is based on your opinion. You're proposing a legislation that takes something enjoyable away from hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of law abiding citizens, when there is emperical proof that pretty much all experts agree upon that banning it and other similar weapons has absolutely no affect on violent crime rates in this country on way or another. Not only that, but you're going to put a lot of people who have jobs manufacturing them out of a job

You know, I'm fine with leaving the argument where it is, but this was just bugging me too much. Emperical [sic] proof of experts agreeing on something is not empirical proof it is true. There is no empirical data that shows the type of restrictions I am in favor of would have no effect on violent crime rates. The argument you put forth here consists of both the bandwagon fallacy and the fallacy of appealing to an authority.

I'm not saying any of those people are wrong, I'm just saying there is no data that proves it at this time, and just because they agree that it is such does not mean it is so.

[Benton]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

We've covered this a number of times, though. the restriction of those weapons would hold no bearing on the ability of the civilian population to oppose the government.

Agreed, I was just disagreeing with the point that the Second is all about people shooting skeet or squirrels.

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

As far as opposing the government is concerned, that is what voting and impeachment are for. With the military we have today, from the reserves to the national guard to the regular military, the civilian population could not seriously think it could over throw the government with force.

That is the problem with a number of the amendments, they are old and out dated. I seriously believe that they need to be looked at and brought up to current times.

Voting and impeachment are tools of continuation. You don't vote out a dictator. You don't impeach an oligarchy. You tell them no. And sometimes when you tell people with armies no, they disagree and blow up your house.

As far as updating the amendments, I disagree. They weren't designed for how people try to weigh actions or inactions on every syllable. They were designed to be a general framework of basic principles making sure the government stayed free of outside influences and the people weren't controlled by the government.

[Whatever]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

You know, I'm fine with leaving the argument where it is, but this was just bugging me too much. Emperical [sic] proof of experts agreeing on something is not empirical proof it is true. There is no empirical data that shows the type of restrictions I am in favor of would have no effect on violent crime rates. The argument you put forth here consists of both the bandwagon fallacy and the fallacy of appealing to an authority.

I'm not saying any of those people are wrong, I'm just saying there is no data that proves it at this time, and just because they agree that it is such does not mean it is so.

You are the one who wants changes made to current legislation, which means the burden of proof falls upon you and other like minded individuals to demonstrate how it will be beneficial to American society. Studies analyzed by experts by no means scientifically prove anything, however, they are much more qualified to make statements about the topic than you are. When dealing with human social behavior, it is impossible to use the scientific method to prove anything with a large subject group. All you can do is map trends and predict what will happen MOST of the time.

And seriously, we're going with fallacies here? You're entire argument is based around your fallacy of composition that because the modern AR-15 is based off of, but different than, a weapon of war, that it is itself a weapon of war. The fact that many studies on the topic have been carried on laws passed at the city, state, and national level and experts are in agreement that there is no correlation between assault weapon bans and violent crime also finds you guilty of the slothful induction fallacy. Slothful induction revolves around somebody denies an argument it's proper conclusion despite strong evidence for inference, which you are more than certainly doing in this case to attempt to keep this discussion goig.

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

As far as opposing the government is concerned, that is what voting and impeachment are for. With the military we have today, from the reserves to the national guard to the regular military, the civilian population could not seriously think it could over throw the government with force.

That is the problem with a number of the amendments, they are old and out dated. I seriously believe that they need to be looked at and brought up to current times.

Yeah, we could do without that one about freedom of speech stuff. That's way outdated.

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

You were talking about a 10 round magazine for your .22 and you were asked why you needed a 10 round magazine. Next time try to be more clear. Obviously you don't need a 10 round magazine for a plinking rifle, you just don't want to be bothered by working the bolt or lever action.

If you can load, shoot, and reload a single shot shotgun 20 times in less than 40 seconds it will meet your needs just fine. Plus you could always upgrade to a double barrel or a pump action. Like you stated you've seen people reload a shotgun in a manner of seconds. So there are plenty of tactical alternatives which eliminate your perceived need for a high capacity magazine.

I'm glad you have thick skin. That doesn't obviate your use of perjoratives to insult others. Was there a need for your insults? Do we want to open that can of worms?

I was crystal clear.

The point is that I can load, shoot, and reload a single shot quickly. However, it isn't ideal, especially in a highly intense home defense situation. What if I am in a place where I can't get to the ammo? What if adrenaline takes over? What if the bad guy has a semi-auto? You are missing many, many variable here.

When did the word liberal become such a bad word? Fred called me a conservative. Should I go cry about that. Most liberals are proud of their liberalness. I'm not 100% certain, but I think Fred himself referred to himself as a liberal in the past. Perhaps you should just let Fred argue his points for himself.

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

It is your right to believe in ancient Jewish mythology.

It is my right to disagree. And I signed multiple legal contracts agreeing to defend your right to believe that with my life.

Thank you for defending my rights.

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

Would you care to respond to the personal responsiblity of the gun owner and what step she could or should have taken to prevent this?

Her guns were stolen, she has no responsibility here.

the personal responsibility lies with lawbreakers.

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

I have. Doesn't make me a killer. Unless you want to include that time in Iraq.

But, I've been told by Christian chaplains the good Lord gives out exemptions for that. Sergeat York will explain it to you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W87k64HU9gE

Funny the religious leaders of non-Christian countries tell their soldiers the same thing.

It's funny how we justify things to ourselves.

Your sin, my sin, is no different than another's sin. The consequences are different.

Tell a lie, it may only hurt one person. Cheat on your wife, could hurt a whole family. Shoot up a school, it hurts many. The fact is all of us are accountable. Lying doesn't make you a killer, but it does make you a sinner and an enemy of God. But that's for another thread.

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

This website's code of conduct restricts what you can and cannot write on this website. Is your First Amendment right being violated? According to your logic it is. Yet, I haven't heard a peep out of you in protest. But, you've squalled like a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs at the suggestion you can't have a 10 round magazine for your .22 plinking rifle.

Are you serious? LOL

One is in the constitution and is a clear violation of it, the other is a private entity.

Really? This one kind of made my day? I guess I should also be able to walk into any store naked.

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by Whatever

A large part of the point of high cap magazines in target weapons is that many people enjoy working on tighter shot groupings when rapid firing, which difficult to near impossible with a break action weapon. Besides, if you're proposing teaching people to fire a single shot weapon 20 times in less than 40 seconds is reasonable with a little practice as an alternative to high cap magazines, then there shouldn't be any issue with high cap magazines at all, since a person can logically shoot that fast whether they have a single shot weapon or a 30 round clip.

If we're talking about banning high capacity magazines because we believe it will make the public safer[and mind you, there is no empirical data that proves this statement], then the US should also ban all motor vehicles that can go faster than the legal speed limit, so 70 mph or so. It is a proven fact that excessive speed is a contributer to many traffic accidents and there are far more traffic deaths each year than shooting deaths, so if you govern all cars, trucks, and motorcycles to 70 mph, the general public will be far safer.

There's the slippery slope with that logic. A person can argue just as easily that you don't need a 300 HP sports car as they can that you don't need a 10 round magazine for your .22. This is where the concept of a free country comes in. We are reasonably free to do what we want so long as it does not endanger the lives of others. An AR-15 assault rifle with a 30 round clip being used to shoot targets at the local gun range is no more of a risk to the safety of the public than a Ford Mustang with a 400+HP engine being driven within the legal speed limit. Both items give their owners pleasure, however, if used in a dangerous manner, death can follow.

Too much sound logic in here.....you will have to try it again and make it make less sense.

[XenoMorph]

Originally Posted by Whatever

A large part of the point of high cap magazines in target weapons is that many people enjoy working on tighter shot groupings when rapid firing, which difficult to near impossible with a break action weapon. Besides, if you're proposing teaching people to fire a single shot weapon 20 times in less than 40 seconds is reasonable with a little practice as an alternative to high cap magazines, then there shouldn't be any issue with high cap magazines at all, since a person can logically shoot that fast whether they have a single shot weapon or a 30 round clip.

If we're talking about banning high capacity magazines because we believe it will make the public safer[and mind you, there is no empirical data that proves this statement], then the US should also ban all motor vehicles that can go faster than the legal speed limit, so 70 mph or so. It is a proven fact that excessive speed is a contributer to many traffic accidents and there are far more traffic deaths each year than shooting deaths, so if you govern all cars, trucks, and motorcycles to 70 mph, the general public will be far safer.

There's the slippery slope with that logic. A person can argue just as easily that you don't need a 300 HP sports car as they can that you don't need a 10 round magazine for your .22. This is where the concept of a free country comes in. We are reasonably free to do what we want so long as it does not endanger the lives of others. An AR-15 assault rifle with a 30 round clip being used to shoot targets at the local gun range is no more of a risk to the safety of the public than a Ford Mustang with a 400+HP engine being driven within the legal speed limit. Both items give their owners pleasure, however, if used in a dangerous manner, death can follow.

This WINS!!! Thread over.