If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   The GOP is now calling for broader gun rights, including unlimited capacity for bullets within guns, because obviously when I look at the aftermath of this summer what I think is "we need guns with more bullets"   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 458
    More: Asinine, GOP, David Keene, mass shooting, semiautomatic firearms, Sounds Good, assault weapons, NRA, Gabrielle Giffords  
•       •       •

1518 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Aug 2012 at 3:42 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



458 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-30 10:53:28 AM
Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

(disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)
 
2012-08-30 10:54:49 AM

make me some tea: Why do you need these things?


Why not?
 
2012-08-30 11:06:03 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: make me some tea: Why do you need these things?

Why not?



Because mass killings?

I support gun rights, but unlimited clip sizes? If you can't do the job with 25 bullets, what in hell are you doing?
 
2012-08-30 11:07:38 AM

make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?


Why should my right to own something be predicated on my need to own that thing?
 
2012-08-30 11:08:53 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: make me some tea: Why do you need these things?

Why not?


Well, there we go. The next campus or theater shooter will thank you for such an honest reply.
 
2012-08-30 11:09:22 AM

make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

(disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)


Well, Obama has done nothing but expand gun rights in the last four years, so they need to get a good soundbite of him saying something anti-gun, like "I don't think we should allow unmedicated schizophrenic people to own their own bazookas without a preliminary background check."
 
2012-08-30 11:10:43 AM

make me some tea: (disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)


The military wouldn't be particularly interested in most of the weapons people are seeking to ban.
 
2012-08-30 11:12:19 AM
If this thread had a gun, this thread never would've happened.
 
2012-08-30 11:15:12 AM
Well, I'm sure this thread will be chock full of rational, well reasoned arguments

/not to mention civility
 
2012-08-30 11:16:07 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, I'm sure this thread will be chock full of rational, well reasoned arguments

/not to mention civility


academic.missouriwestern.edu

"Say that to my face, f*cker"
 
2012-08-30 11:17:11 AM

Blues_X: Because mass killings?


Well I guess you're right. The people that broke the laws regarding murder would be inclined to follow a high capacity ban.
 
2012-08-30 11:18:30 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Well I guess you're right. The people that broke the laws regarding murder would be inclined to follow a high capacity ban.


Since we can't possibly keep these people from obtaining firearms, the only reasonable thing to do is relax legislation even further.
 
2012-08-30 11:21:58 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Blues_X: Because mass killings?

Well I guess you're right. The people that broke the laws regarding murder would be inclined to follow a high capacity ban.



I keep hearing that argument, but the recent mass killings involved guns that were purchased legally. Would they have pursued illegal means to gain more advanced guns? Who knows.

And just because some people will break the law to do it doesn't mean that it shouldn't still be regulated.
 
2012-08-30 11:22:41 AM

make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

(disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)


Military-grade firearms are to what we civilians currently have access to as military vehicles are to the H2. Maybe they share some characteristics, but only someone ignorant of how vehicles are built and used would believe the civilian version of the hummer is capable of performing military missions.
 
2012-08-30 11:23:23 AM
You know what would stop a lot of gun violence?

More accessible mental health services.
 
2012-08-30 11:24:47 AM

what_now: You know what would stop a lot of gun violence?

More accessible mental health services.


Oh bless your heart, sweetie.

We both know the answer is more guns. It's like math. They cancel each other out.
 
2012-08-30 11:26:35 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: make me some tea: Why do you need these things?

Why not?


Why not allow people to have fertilizer bombs too then?
 
2012-08-30 11:32:42 AM

Hobodeluxe: Dancin_In_Anson: make me some tea: Why do you need these things?

Why not?

Why not allow people to have fertilizer bombs too then?


"Allow"? You mean legalize, yes? Because there is nothing preventing anyone from making fertilizer bombs right now. We'd have to ban urea and diesel fuel to do that.
 
2012-08-30 11:32:43 AM

Hobodeluxe: Dancin_In_Anson: make me some tea: Why do you need these things?

Why not?

Why not allow people to have fertilizer bombs too then?



We already have OFH.
 
2012-08-30 11:35:06 AM

what_now: You know what would stop a lot of gun violence?

More accessible mental health services.


That's just crazy talk!
 
2012-08-30 11:37:03 AM

Rev.K: Since we can't possibly keep these people from obtaining firearms, the only reasonable thing to do is relax legislation even further disarm the law abiding.


Good thinking!

Blues_X: I keep hearing that argument, but the recent mass killings involved guns that were purchased legally.


And used illegally while the law abiding sat idly by...

Hobodeluxe: Why not allow people to have fertilizer bombs too then?


You know...I can own fertilizer AND diesel fuel. Just like I can own a firearm. My use of those items in a given fashion might be illegal but my ownership is not.
 
2012-08-30 11:43:38 AM

Dancin_In_Anson:
And used illegally while the law abiding sat idly by...


That's true. I sat here in my office and did nothing.

I must be part of the problem.
 
2012-08-30 11:46:53 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Rev.K: Since we can't possibly keep these people from obtaining firearms, the only reasonable thing to do is relax legislation even further disarm the law abiding.

Good thinking!

Blues_X: I keep hearing that argument, but the recent mass killings involved guns that were purchased legally.

And used illegally while the law abiding sat idly by...

Hobodeluxe: Why not allow people to have fertilizer bombs too then?

You know...I can own fertilizer AND diesel fuel. Just like I can own a firearm. My use of those items in a given fashion might be illegal but my ownership is not.


go try to buy that fertilizer in bulk :)
 
2012-08-30 11:47:44 AM

Blues_X: I support gun rights, but unlimited clip sizes? If you can't do the job with 25 bullets, what in hell are you doing?


I don't know. Maybe working for the NYPD?
 
2012-08-30 12:02:26 PM

Marcus Aurelius: I must be part of the problem.


Could be eh?


Hobodeluxe: go try to buy that fertilizer in bulk :)


I live in a rural community. It's done quite often...as is bulk diesel purchases.
 
2012-08-30 12:03:01 PM

Karac: Blues_X: I support gun rights, but unlimited clip sizes? If you can't do the job with 25 bullets, what in hell are you doing?

I don't know. Maybe working for the NYPD?


ZING.


Dancin_In_Anson: And used illegally while the law abiding sat idly by...


I think they were running more than sitting.
 
2012-08-30 12:03:39 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Rev.K: Since we can't possibly keep these people from obtaining firearms, the only reasonable thing to do is relax legislation even further disarm the law abiding.

Good thinking!

Blues_X: I keep hearing that argument, but the recent mass killings involved guns that were purchased legally.

And used illegally while the law abiding sat idly by...

Hobodeluxe: Why not allow people to have fertilizer bombs too then?

You know...I can own fertilizer AND diesel fuel. Just like I can own a firearm. My use of those items in a given fashion might be illegal but my ownership is not.


and also the capacity for mass casualties should also be limited. that's why you can't just go and buy that fertilizer in mass quantities w/o a license and/or being flagged by DHS/ATF
that's why you can't legally buy fully automatics,frag grenades ,C-4,landmines and such.

there's no real self defense need to have a hundred round mag for a rifle.
 
2012-08-30 12:06:28 PM
I mean, even though I don't need a 12-pounder Napoleon gun, I really, really want one.

I could see why it's not that great of an idea to just sell them at Wal Mart.
 
2012-08-30 12:08:21 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Marcus Aurelius: I must be part of the problem.

Could be eh?


Hobodeluxe: go try to buy that fertilizer in bulk :)

I live in a rural community. It's done quite often...as is bulk diesel purchases.


but you have to have to be registered don't you? I thought the DHS tracked that stuff?
 
2012-08-30 12:11:43 PM

Blues_X: I think they were running more than sitting.


As opposed to returning fire.

Hobodeluxe: and also the capacity for mass casualties should also be limited


My high capacity magazines have never caused mass casualties.

Hobodeluxe: there's no real self defense need to have a hundred round mag for a rifle.


Some may disagree with you.
 
2012-08-30 12:13:08 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Blues_X: I think they were running more than sitting.

As opposed to returning fire.

Hobodeluxe: and also the capacity for mass casualties should also be limited

My high capacity magazines have never caused mass casualties.

Hobodeluxe: there's no real self defense need to have a hundred round mag for a rifle.

Some may disagree with you.


yeah some people think aliens are about to invade the Earth too
 
2012-08-30 12:17:05 PM

Hobodeluxe: but you have to have to be registered don't you?


I can make about 5 stops in less than an hour and have #1000 of fertilizer without anyone taking notice.
 
2012-08-30 12:18:53 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Blues_X: I think they were running more than sitting.

As opposed to returning fire


You mean when they were in one dark theater that a smoke bomb had been released in, and in the theater next door, where they couldn't even see the killer? Yeah opening fire in that situation sounds really logically sound.
 
2012-08-30 12:25:14 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Hobodeluxe: but you have to have to be registered don't you?

I can make about 5 stops in less than an hour and have #1000 of fertilizer without anyone taking notice.


So change the subject of the argument from fertilizer bombs to hand grenades or fully automatic weapons.

Using your line of logic, I should really be allowed to own any weapon regardless of it's potential for harm, right?
 
2012-08-30 12:30:17 PM

Hobodeluxe: there's no real self defense need to have a hundred round mag for a rifle.


How much harder is it to use 3 or 4 30round magazines than 1 100 round magazine?
 
2012-08-30 12:30:35 PM

make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

(disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)


Well first as someone said "why not"

The main reason is that it is just another restriction upon our Constitutional rights that in truth does nothing to make us safer.

I shoot competitively both cowboy and "action." Action shooting involves multiple targets with multiple rounds- I have shot 40 round stages- fired so as a competitor the bigger the magazine the less I have to reload, For self defense unlike the Police I do not have a radio in which I can request the world to back me up and have them do so on average in under 2.5 minutes, you and I have 911 where the average response times ranges from 4.9 minutes to over 15 minutes. Now if I am in a situation to where I am forced to use lethal force, I may not have access to spare magazines it only makes sense to have the highest capacity magazine my gun will take and fire reliably since it will be a long time (relatively speaking) before I am assisted, and with today's crime trends it is most likely I will have multiple bad guys trying to do me harm making those few extra rounds in a magazine something very nice to have- you know the same reason the cops switched from revolvers even though the .357 is the proven king of handguns in stopping a threat.


The magazine debate is is another attempt to place a restriction upon the law abiding, one that the criminal element will ignore. Magazine bans and assault gun bans are as effective as limiting the size of gas tanks and banning spoilers to stop street racing. It all boils down to those wanting to break the law will do so.

Another thing to consider is if this does happen all it will do is create another business opportunity for the cartels who will then start smuggling actual military hardware in with the drugs. I know that the Cops I am friends with would rather face some homie with a semi-auto AK type rifle rather than the select fire military version.

Currently I live in California where we have the laws the antis want Nationally and I can tell you from experience and the crime stats verify that all these laws do is deter the law abiding from owning a firearm, the criminal element is having no problems getting what they want on the illegal market.
 
2012-08-30 12:32:09 PM

itsdan: Hobodeluxe: there's no real self defense need to have a hundred round mag for a rifle.

How much harder is it to use 3 or 4 30round magazines than 1 100 round magazine?


hey I'm all for taking them down to 6-8 shots.
 
2012-08-30 12:35:40 PM

PolloDiablo: potential for harm


Gun owners: "I've never shot the place up. Why are you so afraid of me?"
You: "We are afraid of the gun - not the man"
Gun owners: "But the gun is just a tool with no will of its own. If you fear the gun you really fear me but don't have the guts to say so".
You: ...
Gun owners: "And WE are the ones accused of being illogical, fear driven, and dishonest?"
 
2012-08-30 12:47:28 PM

Azlefty: Well first as someone said "why not"

The main reason is that it is just another restriction upon our Constitutional rights that in truth does nothing to make us safer.

I shoot competitively both cowboy and "action." Action shooting involves multiple targets with multiple rounds- I have shot 40 round stages- fired so as a competitor the bigger the magazine the less I have to reload, For self defense unlike the Police I do not have a radio in which I can request the world to back me up and have them do so on average in under 2.5 minutes, you and I have 911 where the average response times ranges from 4.9 minutes to over 15 minutes. Now if I am in a situation to where I am forced to use lethal force, I may not have access to spare magazines it only makes sense to have the highest capacity magazine my gun will take and fire reliably since it will be a long time (relatively speaking) before I am assisted, and with today's crime trends it is most likely I will have multiple bad guys trying to do me harm making those few extra rounds in a magazine something very nice to have- you know the same reason the cops switched from revolvers even though the .357 is the proven king of handguns in stopping a threat.


The magazine debate is is another attempt to place a restriction upon the law abiding, one that the criminal element will ignore. Magazine bans and assault gun bans are as effective as limiting the size of gas tanks and banning spoilers to stop street racing. It all boils down to those wanting to break the law will do so.

Another thing to consider is if this does happen all it will do is create another business opportunity for the cartels who will then start smuggling actual military hardware in with the drugs. I know that the Cops I am friends with would rather face some homie with a semi-auto AK type rifle rather than the select fire military version.

Currently I live in California where we have the laws the antis want Nationally and I can tell you from experience ...


Thank you, good points.
 
2012-08-30 12:52:52 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Blues_X: Because mass killings?

Well I guess you're right. The people that broke the laws regarding murder would be inclined to follow a high capacity ban.


Did they utilize legal or illegal weaponry to execute those mass shootings?

Let's be honest - an assault rifle is pretty efective. A missile is more effective. If the goal is the biggest casualty possible and they selected a deadly legal weapon and not a deadlier illegal weapon . . . Then it certainly is an effective deterrent.
 
2012-08-30 12:55:32 PM
Normally, I'd say the Republicans were calling for decreased gun regulation because it's an election year.

Now, I'm pretty sure they're preparing for a violent revolution.
 
2012-08-30 01:00:37 PM
Hey look, it's yet another gun thread full of DIA misdirection and refusal to actually answer questions.
 
2012-08-30 01:01:14 PM

Bontesla: Normally, I'd say the Republicans were calling for decreased gun regulation because it's an election year.

Now, I'm pretty sure they're preparing for a violent revolution.


Well, more than a few elected Republicans have said exact that, so...
 
2012-08-30 01:01:41 PM

itsdan: How much harder is it to use 3 or 4 30round magazines than 1 100 round magazine?


Not much, so then the question becomes why ban the 100 rounder other than as your comments indicate to makes you feel safe. It is like saying cars can only have 4 cylinder engines to reduce fatalities caused by speeding; it sounds neat but in practice does not do squat!


Instead of focusing on the tool focus on the doer, Both Uncle Fester in Tucson and Side Show Bob in Aurora had displayed the signs of mental illness that had been seen by many yet due to our current mental health system they were able to run around without getting the treatment they needed,
 
2012-08-30 01:11:55 PM

mahuika: You mean when they were in one dark theater that a smoke bomb had been released in, and in the theater next door, where they couldn't even see the killer? Yeah opening fire in that situation sounds really logically sound.


It was light enough for this eyewitness account:

"At first, I didn't think it was anything serious, I thought it was a joke or part of the show... he came in, he was five feet away from me, he came in on my right side, I was in the second row in the very front. He came in and he threw in the gas can," Jennifer Seeger, another theatergoer, told NBC News. "And then I knew it was real. And then he shot the ceiling, and right after he shot the ceiling, he pointed the gun right at me,"

PolloDiablo: Using your line of logic, I should really be allowed to own any weapon regardless of it's potential for harm, right?


I know quite a few people who own automatic weapons. I cannot name a single one of them whom I would consider to be a threat to society.

Bontesla: Did they utilize legal or illegal weaponry to execute those mass shootings?


Legal. What's your point? If they were illegally obtained the result would have been different?
 
2012-08-30 01:12:30 PM

GAT_00: Hey look, it's yet another gun thread full of DIA misdirection and refusal to actually answer questions.


Ask away. Please.
 
2012-08-30 01:13:01 PM
Let me ask this: what is the situation where a normal magazine isn't enough to save you in the gunfight that never occurs on a day to day basis, but you would be saved if you had a double magazine?

What is the scenario where you need an extended magazine and how are you not free unless you have one?

It seems like the only time you'd really need something like that is in a shootout with the police. Or Obama Death Panel Enforcers, for you gun-nuts.
 
2012-08-30 01:14:12 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: GAT_00: Hey look, it's yet another gun thread full of DIA misdirection and refusal to actually answer questions.

Ask away. Please.


You have no need to waste time because I know you won't answer them. Just lie, misdirect and threadjack. You have no interest in honest debate.

Go away, nobody would miss you.
 
2012-08-30 01:15:07 PM

Bontesla: Let's be honest - an assault rifle is pretty effective. A missile is more effective. If the goal is the biggest casualty possible and they selected a deadly legal weapon and not a deadlier illegal weapon . . . Then it certainly is an effective deterrent.


Exactly. And just because someone could get a certain weapon or magazine on the black market, it doesn't mean that they will. And it will certainly be more expensive.
 
2012-08-30 01:16:37 PM

Pfactor: PolloDiablo: potential for harm

Gun owners: "I've never shot the place up. Why are you so afraid of me?"
You: "We are afraid of the gun - not the man"
Gun owners: "But the gun is just a tool with no will of its own. If you fear the gun you really fear me but don't have the guts to say so".
You: ...
Gun owners: "And WE are the ones accused of being illogical, fear driven, and dishonest?"


Dancin_In_Anson: I know quite a few people who own automatic weapons. I cannot name a single one of them whom I would consider to be a threat to society.


Neither of you actually addressed the question. Employing the line of logic that you are, shouldn't I be allowed to own any weapon, including things like landmines and RPGs? If not, why?
 
Displayed 50 of 458 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report