brady bill ad

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by kro32

 

Do you have any idea how many times that ridiculous argument has been used?

What argument? I'm just responding to what's being posted...I'm all for people owning guns I just would like to know at what point do you say..."Hey that gun really shouldn't be able to be bought in the store"

reply to post by kro32


The ridiculous argument that because some of us feel we should have the ability to match the military's ground forces in weaponry that somehow that translates into being able to use bio weapons and nukes. It's childish.

Explosives are something that should be controlled, but one must understand that explosives can be made VERY easily and these things can only be controlled so much.

You're barkin' up the wrong tree here.

My family came from a country that doesn't allow any guns because the government doesn't want the people to be able to defend themselves from their ridiculousness.

Apparently you don't understand the concept of a level playing field and what that means to self defense. I don't want to ban ANY weapons. Self defense is a natural right not subject to legislation.

The cat has it's and claws, the dog has it's teeth, the human lacking claws and sharp pointed teeth, uses his/her mind and hands to create weapons.

That's not up for negotiation with me.

Originally posted by kro32
So we should allow average citizens access to biological and nuclear weapons?

I've given this a lot of serious thought.

The answer is the Citizens already DO have access to Nuclear and Biological weapons. At least as much as any Soldier does anyway. These we can categorize as weapons of mass destruction specifically used as deterrents from other nations. As such they serve every citizen in their purpose.

The primary concern of the second amendment was not for citizens to defend themselves against other nations but to dispose an unlawful or unjust government and allow for their own personal defense. Weapons of mass destruction would not be useful for either purpose and will serve the citizens the same where they are.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by kro32

 

The ridiculous argument that because some of us feel we should have the ability to match the military's ground forces in weaponry that somehow that translates into being able to use bio weapons and nukes. It's childish.

Explosives are something that should be controlled, but one must understand that explosives can be made VERY easily and these things can only be controlled so much.

You're barkin' up the wrong tree here.

My family came from a country that doesn't allow any guns because the government doesn't want the people to be able to defend themselves from their ridiculousness.

Apparently you don't understand the concept of a level playing field and what that means to self defense. I don't want to ban ANY weapons. Self defense is a natural right not subject to legislation.

The cat has it's and claws, the dog has it's teeth, the human lacking claws and sharp pointed teeth, uses his/her mind and hands to create weapons.

That's not up for negotiation with me.

edit on 17-4-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-4-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

Ok so nukes are out but you'd have no problem with the gunstore selling rocket launchers, land mines, grenades, or the local car dealership selliing fully armed tanks to the general public?

reply to post by kro32


Please reread that post. Your question has been answered.

sheesh.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by kro32

 

Please reread that post. Your question has been answered.

sheesh.

edit on 17-4-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

That's fine but my point was to the original post. My school has never had a school shooting and I recently asked this question at a school ralley we had. "If students are allowed to carry concealed weapons is the possiblility of a shooting on campus going to go up or go down?" What do you think?

Of course they are going to go up. Now if that happens I don't want fellow students, most of whom are not criminals and will purchase weapons from the local gun store, to have access to weapons with large magazines or whatever the bill is about.

I doubt if your ability to overthrow the government is going to be hampered if you have to stop and reload instead of firing off 30 rounds in .2 seconds. I know the specifics are wrong but you get my point. The odds of people needing these weapons to defend against the government vs. the possibility of me getting shot at school kinda makes this one a no brainer.

reply to post by kro32


You know why I would like to have the ability to have more than 10 bullets at a time, 'cuz I'm a little tiny girl and have little tiny fingers and am of the "I'll do it myself" type mentality when it comes to loading my clips. I don't want to depend on my husband or brother-in-law to load my bullets for me. I am able to do it myself. If I don't want them doing it for me, why would I want a politician making decisions about how many I can load at a time?

I don't want someone else telling me that I have to only use 10 at a time, stop, walk over to reload, go back to shooting, stop, go reload...wash, rinse, repeat. Over the course of a whole afternoon that gets monotonous and I spend more time walking back and forth to get to the bullets to load them than I do being able to plink away at my targets. Unless someone is doing it for me to take some time off the process, but then that cuts into their time that they would like to be spending plinking at their own targets.

Sorry, but we aren't using our guns to take out the girl scouts or anything. There is no reason that we, who have fully followed the law in every aspect, should be the ones punished because some criminal can't be bothered with the law. As others on this thread have mentioned, they're criminals. They aren't all that worried about the law to begin with or we wouldn't be calling them criminals. What makes anyone think that, suddenly, this will be the law that they decide they had better not break? Really? Let me tell ya what: it won't be.

So, if someone wants to come out shooting with me and sit by my box of bullets and spend the day doing nothing but loading my clips (magazines?) so that I don't have to spend more time on walking back and forth, I'm not going to stop them. Since the odds of that happening fall somewhere between slim and none, they should really pull their noses out of my business and not worry about whether or not I shoot 10 bullets before walking to reload or 30.

Take care,
Cindi

Originally posted by Glencairn
reply to post by kro32

 

You know why I would like to have the ability to have more than 10 bullets at a time, 'cuz I'm a little tiny girl and have little tiny fingers and am of the "I'll do it myself" type mentality when it comes to loading my clips. I don't want to depend on my husband or brother-in-law to load my bullets for me. I am able to do it myself. If I don't want them doing it for me, why would I want a politician making decisions about how many I can load at a time?

I don't want someone else telling me that I have to only use 10 at a time, stop, walk over to reload, go back to shooting, stop, go reload...wash, rinse, repeat. Over the course of a whole afternoon that gets monotonous and I spend more time walking back and forth to get to the bullets to load them than I do being able to plink away at my targets. Unless someone is doing it for me to take some time off the process, but then that cuts into their time that they would like to be spending plinking at their own targets.

Sorry, but we aren't using our guns to take out the girl scouts or anything. There is no reason that we, who have fully followed the law in every aspect, should be the ones punished because some criminal can't be bothered with the law. As others on this thread have mentioned, they're criminals. They aren't all that worried about the law to begin with or we wouldn't be calling them criminals. What makes anyone think that, suddenly, this will be the law that they decide they had better not break? Really? Let me tell ya what: it won't be.

So, if someone wants to come out shooting with me and sit by my box of bullets and spend the day doing nothing but loading my clips (magazines?) so that I don't have to spend more time on walking back and forth, I'm not going to stop them. Since the odds of that happening fall somewhere between slim and none, they should really pull their noses out of my business and not worry about whether or not I shoot 10 bullets before walking to reload or 30.

Take care,
Cindi

Well because if someone at my school who is carrying a gun because of the new law which he didn't buy illegally has a bad day with his girlfriend or get's high and decides to go on a shooting rampage I'd appreciate him only getting off 10 rounds instead of 30 so we might have a chance to tackle him or something along those llines.

I think I have a valid point. Your assuming that everyone with legal access to these firearms are responsible people and that's not always the case. Now when i'm being put in a situation where there may very well be hidden guns around me for 8 hours a day I would like a bit of a safety net.

So i'm sorry if your having to reload on the shooting range inconviences you but compared to the possiblity of me losing my life...I don't have much sympathy for you.

reply to post by kro32


"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
~~ Robert A. Heinlein

Of course to live in a free society one is forced to be responsible, polite, and courteous to their fellow citizens. This doesn't really describe today's popular culture where being a little A is the norm. Gun ownership is an inalienable right and it is also a responsibility.

The responsibility part is the one most non-gun people miss and every gun advocate takes for granted. There is no place on earth where you find better manners than at a shooting range. It isn't because the people are afraid of being shot at. It is because the people there understand the fundamental importance of being responsible for their actions.

If we taught people to be respectful, polite, and responsible for their actions 90% of the nations problems would simply vanish. As it is now none of those things are taught, and they are derided in popular culture.

reply to post by kro32


You do understand that this hypothetical student, if he is able to buy the gun legally, hasn't done anything wrong yet, right? You are verging dangerously close to some kind of "Minority Report" type mentality. You want to limit the rights of the entire country on a hypothetical scenario that revolves around some kid maybe potentially committing a crime, but that hasn't been committed yet?

What about the other people who would have their own guns and possibly be able to stop this hypothetical student before he was able to get his shots off and kill someone? Why wait for him to run out and then tackle him if it could be done more safely from a distance by some other armed and law abiding person?

Why should your safety net be allowed to take the rights away of others who have done nothing to deserve being punished, just so you have your peace of mind? Isn't that less of a safety net and more of a security blanket?

Take care,
Cindi

reply to post by bekod


It's quite Simple .The Anti Gun Lobby are backed by TPTB that know Good and Well that their Agenda for a NWO cannot be achieved unless the American People are Disarmed first . These People are Traitors to our Constitution and the American way of Life and should be fought with Tooth and Nail untill they Cease to Exist as a Political Voice .

Originally posted by Glencairn
reply to post by kro32

 

You do understand that this hypothetical student, if he is able to buy the gun legally, hasn't done anything wrong yet, right? You are verging dangerously close to some kind of "Minority Report" type mentality. You want to limit the rights of the entire country on a hypothetical scenario that revolves around some kid maybe potentially committing a crime, but that hasn't been committed yet?

What about the other people who would have their own guns and possibly be able to stop this hypothetical student before he was able to get his shots off and kill someone? Why wait for him to run out and then tackle him if it could be done more safely from a distance by some other armed and law abiding person?

Why should your safety net be allowed to take the rights away of others who have done nothing to deserve being punished, just so you have your peace of mind? Isn't that less of a safety net and more of a security blanket?

Take care,
Cindi

It probably won't be hypothetical once this law passes in Arizona it will be something I very well may have to face. It's real.

And how is allowing you to own your weapons just limiting the size of your clip infringing on your right at all. Is there something you can't do with less bullets in your gun. And the reason I say that we would tackle him is because most of the kids on my campus are not going to be buying and carrying guns however maybe we will have too in case stuff like this happens.

Adding more bullets will not make me any safer but it certainly will increase my danger level. You may think you have the right to have 30 round clips but don't I also have the right for people not to have them? The constitution says you have the right to arms which I agree with but it probably wasn't conceived with the idea of what the guns of today would be capable of.

reply to post by kro32


You say that it "probably" won't be hypothetical and that it very well "may" be something that you have to face. Unless you can see the future, you are still working with hypothetical imaginings.

No, you don't have the right to remove the rights of others just so that you have peace of mind. That isn't how it works. Look, I understand the impulse. When I hear people like the Westboro Baptist group, I absolutely hate that they say what they do and are protected by the first amendment. That does not, however, give me the right to remove their first amendment right to freedom of speech just because I don't like what they are saying. This is the same thing. You are wanting to remove the rights of an entire population because you don't want to have to worry about some hypothetical kid at school shooting the place up.

You can keep the scenario running and add whatever flourishes and embellishments you want, it doesn't change the fact that you are advocating removing a right so that you have less to worry about. The fact is, this hypothetical kid is a lot less likely to go on some rampage if he has to worry about his actions causing others to shoot back than he is if he thinks that he is shooting at fish in a barrel.

Take care,
Cindi

Originally posted by Glencairn
reply to post by kro32

 

You say that it "probably" won't be hypothetical and that it very well "may" be something that you have to face. Unless you can see the future, you are still working with hypothetical imaginings.

No, you don't have the right to remove the rights of others just so that you have peace of mind. That isn't how it works. Look, I understand the impulse. When I hear people like the Westboro Baptist group, I absolutely hate that they say what they do and are protected by the first amendment. That does not, however, give me the right to remove their first amendment right to freedom of speech just because I don't like what they are saying. This is the same thing. You are wanting to remove the rights of an entire population because you don't want to have to worry about some hypothetical kid at school shooting the place up.

You can keep the scenario running and add whatever flourishes and embellishments you want, it doesn't change the fact that you are advocating removing a right so that you have less to worry about. The fact is, this hypothetical kid is a lot less likely to go on some rampage if he has to worry about his actions causing others to shoot back than he is if he thinks that he is shooting at fish in a barrel.

Take care,
Cindi

I am all for your right to own guns. Not debating that however nowhere in the constitution does it say how big the magazine should be. It is not stated because it is left up to be legislated on as time passes. Our only right is the ability to bear arms the rest is up for debate.

And yes my situation is hypothetical but i'm weighing it against others reasons for having weapons that are capable of immense firepower. That is the debate not the actual right for anyone to own weapons. It seems far more reasonable that all of a sudden with students allowed to carry concealed weapons that my personal risk from being shot goes up also.

Less bullets in a gun may give me that many more chances of escape if the unthinkable were to happen without actually infringing on anyone's right.

I always liked this.

You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

As a citizen, I will protect this country from all enemies, foreign and *domestic*.

This is interesting, from a 2004 survey. I can only imagine the numbers have increased by the millions since then.

Link

Number of guns The actual number of guns reported in our survey varied depending on how the question was asked and who answered the question. Individual firearm owners (n = 702) reported owning an average of 6.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.2 to 7.9, median 3) working firearms. On further examination, it seemed that individuals who owned ≥4 firearms (with an average of 12 firearms per person) were greatly affecting the mean. When outliers representing the top 3% of gun owners (those owning >25 guns) were removed, the average number of working firearms per owner was 5.0 (95% CI 4.6 to 5.4). On the basis of estimates of 26% of adults in the US owning at least one firearm, we estimated that 57 million adults owned 283 million firearms (95% CI 260 to 305 million). Estimates based on the number of household firearms were lower. We estimated that 42 million households in the US possessed at least one firearm in 2004, with an average of 5.2 (95% CI 4.9 to 5.6) guns per household, with outliers of >25 guns removed. The number of privately owned firearms in the US based on these estimates would be 218 million (95% CI 206 to 235 million).

The gun grabbers and their UN agenda can cram it. My 30rd clips have never shot anybody.
Single shot rifles can kill a person. Try to ban those too? Not even close.

Originally posted by kro32
Well seriously what do you need large clips like that for anyways if you don't have something evil planned. I remember the two heavily armed bank robbers in california that put up quite a fight with their armor and guns.

I'm not an expert in guns or stuff and certainly don't want to see that right taken away but is there something your gonna use a 30 round clip for that you couldn't use a smaller one for. I know what the criminals would use it for.

And yes i'm sure you could use it to defend yourself but how many times do you actually ever hear about a gun battle happening among normal everyday people that would require that?

When was the last time YOU "NEEDED" a chainsaw? Should we make a law banning them?Its manipulation of the clueless and you are falling for it. You are not in any greater"danger" if some has a gun with 30 cartridges than if they only contain 10.
Itakes less than a second to change an empty 10round magazine for a fresh one.In the end The whole point is ridiculous. just because the magazine holds more than 10 cartridges the bullets still don't fly towards children on their own

Defensive shooting teaches the "tactical reload" you reload a magazine fed weapon during a "lull " in the action: BEFORE you run out! You NEVER want to have an empty gun ( it's useless,AND PREVENTABLE))or one down to one or two shots left!. So for all intents and purposes" every magazine has "enough" ammunition or you don't have enough mags on you.

.

reply to post by projectvxn


Where do I get these assault clips? Are these what girls in the army put in their hair when they go on missions?

I need to get some of these for my girlfriend her hair always gets in the way when we go out for a long day of killing other people's children and raising general mayhem by firing indiscriminately into crowds.....

Oh WAIT!!! That's right we own our guns legally and don't want to go to prison/ are not PSYCHOPATHS so we don't do those things.... what you own 30 round MAGAZINES and don't do it either? You mean it's not the legal gun owners doing this? And it's mostly the large gun manufacturers with ties to the MIC that get caught selling large amounts of guns to criminal types who can't get them legally? But wait that means if we ban 30 round MAGAZINES for civilian use the criminals will still be able to get them doesn't it? because they aren't going to restrict the MILITARY to 10 round magazines or the POLICE so the criminals will now have the same firepower advantage AT ALL TIMES that they had in North hollywood that day!!!

As usual they have to short circuit the argument to even have a PRAYER of getting anywhere. If they just used LOGIC .... welll if they used logic they wouldn't be pushing gun control because nothing about it makes sense.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by bekod

 

there are 30 round clips for glocks

edit on 17-4-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

31 rounds actually (+ 1 chambered for 32 total) already ran out and grabbed mine, my G19 w/ extended mag along with my Springfield XD-9 Subcompact that has 13 round standard clip and 16 round extended factory magazines

reply to post by Newbomb Turk


All those little girls and students...

Won't someone think of the children?

reply to post by Newbomb Turk


yeah man go out and buy as many hi cap magazines while you can.

never knows what tomorrow brings.

thats to everyone too.

the only thing that is for certain they will not stop assualting your rights.