brady bill ad

Originally posted by kro32

Originally posted by idonotcollectstamps
reply to post by kro32

 

I would agree to limiting magazine capacity as long as the Police (local and state) and ALL Federal Agencies ban them for their Officers THEN I would do it AFTER they do it. Until that happens, cold dead hands etc. The older impotent generation might have submitted to a ban of this kind, but not this guy. No way will I let it occur again without a fight.

Well while your fighting you battle with the government i'm sitting at school where all of a sudden i'm going to have kids all over with concealed weapons with 30 round clips or something similar. Do you know how much alcohol is on campus or how many pettly little fights break out over dating.

If some kid who is allowed to carry now has a freak out moment and starts shooting I would rather dodge 10 bullets than 30. These aren't criminals carrying they are normal students who probably think it's gonna be cool to be packing legally now. Their guns will be bought legitimatley so that is what i'm concerned about. If a criminal comes in and starts shooting there's nothing I can do about that but we can lower the possible threat from legal guns by reducing the size of the magazine.

Well if a criminal comes on your campus and starts shooting you'll be glad you have 30 round clips, is gonna be the reply. Well playing the odds here I would respond by saying we've never had a shooting on campus so it's more likely that when we do it will be caused by a legal carrying student who now has access and has a moment of rage.

What if a Cop who has a 30 round magazine starts shooting up the school campus? What if a federal agent takes his 30 round magazine out and starts shooting everyone on campus? I would rather dodge ten bullets from a cop or federal officer than 30. Oh wait you think only the government should be allowed to have them? I guess cops and federal officers cannot go crazy and start shooting people? Only non police and non federal law enforcement are prone to insanity? Only college students drink and fight over women? Cops never do it right?

I guess by "some kid" you mean a 21 year old adult since that is the legal age to carry a handgun in the United States (in most states)? They are good enough to go to war and fight and use 30 round magazines but once they are back in the United States they are not good enough to carry them for self defense?

Like I said if we are going to limit magazine capacity it is a all or nothing deal. ALL Cops (local and state) ALL Federal Law Enforcement and THEN all citizens. None of this Cops and Feds are responsible and the rest of you are all evil scumbags who want to shoot college kids in the head at the first opportunity.

Originally posted by idonotcollectstamps

Originally posted by kro32

Originally posted by idonotcollectstamps
reply to post by kro32

 

I would agree to limiting magazine capacity as long as the Police (local and state) and ALL Federal Agencies ban them for their Officers THEN I would do it AFTER they do it. Until that happens, cold dead hands etc. The older impotent generation might have submitted to a ban of this kind, but not this guy. No way will I let it occur again without a fight.

Well while your fighting you battle with the government i'm sitting at school where all of a sudden i'm going to have kids all over with concealed weapons with 30 round clips or something similar. Do you know how much alcohol is on campus or how many pettly little fights break out over dating.

If some kid who is allowed to carry now has a freak out moment and starts shooting I would rather dodge 10 bullets than 30. These aren't criminals carrying they are normal students who probably think it's gonna be cool to be packing legally now. Their guns will be bought legitimatley so that is what i'm concerned about. If a criminal comes in and starts shooting there's nothing I can do about that but we can lower the possible threat from legal guns by reducing the size of the magazine.

Well if a criminal comes on your campus and starts shooting you'll be glad you have 30 round clips, is gonna be the reply. Well playing the odds here I would respond by saying we've never had a shooting on campus so it's more likely that when we do it will be caused by a legal carrying student who now has access and has a moment of rage.

What if a Cop who has a 30 round magazine starts shooting up the school campus? What if a federal agent takes his 30 round magazine out and starts shooting everyone on campus? I would rather dodge ten bullets from a cop or federal officer than 30. Oh wait you think only the government should be allowed to have them? I guess cops and federal officers cannot go crazy and start shooting people? Only non police and non federal law enforcement are prone to insanity? Only college students drink and fight over women? Cops never do it right?

I guess by "some kid" you mean a 21 year old adult since that is the legal age to carry a handgun in the United States (in most states)? They are good enough to go to war and fight and use 30 round magazines but once they are back in the United States they are not good enough to carry them for self defense?

Like I said if we are going to limit magazine capacity it is a all or nothing deal. ALL Cops (local and state) ALL Federal Law Enforcement and THEN all citizens. None of this Cops and Feds are responsible and the rest of you are all evil scumbags who want to shoot college kids in the head at the first opportunity.

When did I ever say cops should be allowed to have them and no one else? I swear some people just like to make stuff up to support their argument.

And there is one difference. Law enforcement usually goes through quite extensive training on proper situational use firearms. If a student would like to take all that training beforehand than by all means let them carry a bazooka slung over their shoulder for all I care.

And most of the crazy shootings that happen are not done by those trained in law enforcement it is done by those who are not.

reply to post by kro32


I think Charles Whitman would have a shot or two to say to you. He was a trained Marine rifleman who manages to snipe nearly 50 people on a Texas Campus. If someone wants to kill you they are going to do it. Crazy is crazy. Shooting off a 30 round magazine at strangers is a mark of insanity, not a mark of someone fighting over a girl. Normal people do not go on shooting sprees. CRAZY PEOPLE DO! Anyone can be effected by insanity.

A 30 round handgun magazine ban would be just the beginning I am afraid. The next thing would be the caliber of the bullet. Why do you need a .45 round? That is so large it is only meant to kill people. It is a tactical cop killer round designed to kill not for self defense. Hollow points? Those have to go as well. Why can you fire off ten bullets in two seconds and then reload in one second? make a law so that you cannot carry more than one extra magazine on your person. Make a law that says a trigger cannot fire faster than one time per second. You want to carry TWO handguns at the same time? No sorry only one from now on. Why do you need to own more than one handgun if you can't carry more than one gun at the same time? Only allowed to own one from now on and on and on and on and on and on until you are not allowed to own a handgun at all because they are only used to kill college kids in drunken girlfriend rages.

Originally posted by idonotcollectstamps
reply to post by kro32

 

I think Charles Whitman would have a shot or two to say to you. He was a trained Marine rifleman who manages to snipe nearly 50 people on a Texas Campus. If someone wants to kill you they are going to do it. Crazy is crazy. Shooting off a 30 round magazine at strangers is a mark of insanity, not a mark of someone fighting over a girl. Normal people do not go on shooting sprees. CRAZY PEOPLE DO! Anyone can be effected by insanity.

A 30 round handgun magazine ban would be just the beginning I am afraid. The next thing would be the caliber of the bullet. Why do you need a .45 round? That is so large it is only meant to kill people. It is a tactical cop killer round designed to kill not for self defense. Hollow points? Those have to go as well. Why can you fire off ten bullets in two seconds and then reload in one second? make a law so that you cannot carry more than one extra magazine on your person. Make a law that says a trigger cannot fire faster than one time per second. You want to carry TWO handguns at the same time? No sorry only one from now on. Why do you need to own more than one handgun if you can't carry more than one gun at the same time? Only allowed to own one from now on and on and on and on and on and on until you are not allowed to own a handgun at all because they are only used to kill college kids in drunken girlfriend rages.

Yes you are right that if someone goes crazy they are going to go after you no matter what. My point was how I can increase my chances of survival if that does happen.

And you have a very good point about where do you stop and that's why debates and forums and people discussing the issue is important. Society will determine as a consensus what they feel is appropriate and we will live with that.

I'm very against my state allowing students to carry concealed weapons however I am not for banning guns at all. My only concern is that if the law passes and they are allowed to carry I would prefer something maybe not as deadly. This would include automatic weapons or guns with large magazines and what not.

I know all guns can be deadly but in my situation it will not be highly trained people carrying the guns. It will more than likely be some dumb college kid who is looking for trouble more than anything so my statements are not directed at responsible gun owners out there who I believe should own whatever they want really. I know they aren't gonna be sitting in class next to me all pissed off cause they just got a D on the term paper and are fingering their gun under their jacket staring at the professor.

I don't know why they even care other than the fact that we the people will have enough of them and go after the government....they don't care if your kids kill each other or if you kill yourself for that matter...its only ever been about them...not us.....we have guns because they make massive profits off our purchases of them and the ammo and supplies that goes with them, just like every other major industry in this country and throughout the world.

our laws and prisons are built specifically to profit from our lawlessness with these guns...everything is all interconnected to each other for control and profit, otherwise we wouldn't need guns, or booz , or cigarettes, porn and they wouldn't have a monopoly to control us with

Debating anti gunners is an exercise in futility.

They are simply intellectual midgets, which is why they rely on emotion and opinion instead of fact and proven history.

reply to post by bekod

that is a m14 the add is wrong it is not a m1 it is a m14www.impactguns.com... Springfield M1A SOCOM 16" this is the m1 www.memorableplaces.com...

You misunderstand..

Imagine a 30round clip in a M1 Garand because the Ad is saying to ban high capacity clips ... the M1 is the most famous American gun that used a Clip, a spring loaded magazine .. where as nearly all guns made today use magazines, with the clip as a internal mechanism of the firearm.

But Liberals don't seem to appreciate understanding what they are so staunchly against.

Originally posted by kro32

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.

edit on 17-4-2011 by kro32 because: added more

...and the point of the law in which AZ wants to adopt, there will be a better chance of someone who is armed as well there to stop it. If your that worries about it, go take a safety course, a carry concel course, and get your own firearm, and defend yourself and God forbid your classmates if that ever came to bear. I am sure that VT and other places that have had these tragidies happen wish they had allowed CCW permits on campus, it could have saved alot of lives. I believe however you do not give your classmates enough credit in my opion.

As it has been stated before, the Second Amendment is about the "We The Peoples" ability to use force to protect the Constitution of the United States of America. All forms of goverenments use force or threat of force to implement compliance. That is what the Second Amendment is about. "WE the PEOPLE" are the government, eith elected officials as are represnatives, not a federal government that is superior to the people. Therefore yes the Law abiding Citizens of the United States, should be allowed to own any man portable weapon the US military has.

Grim

Cool, can't wait to get my hands on that portable rocket launcher for self defense.

Also I am curious as to why you limit it to any man portable weapon. Obviously you think there comes a point when weaponry becomes too powerful for the average law abiding citizen to be trusted with so I wonder why you draw the line there.

According to your logic above there should be no limit as to what we should or should not be able to own as far as weaponry goes.

Reply to post by kro32

Statistically speaking cops are infinitely more likely to have emotional problems and act out violently than non-cops.

Also, with the exception of the para-military swat style cops non-cops are generally better trained than beat cops.

I should know, I've trained plenty of cops.

I think you're assuming too much of cops. The only real thing that makes them any different from you or me is they have a badge that protects themfrom liability and a gang of blue buddies who will look the other way when they behave badly toward non-cops.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by neo96

 

I only buy magpul Pmags for my AR and my wife's M4. We each have one Beta Mag (100rounds) and for the life of me I can't recall the last time we came home from a little girl shooting spree.

What do you mean? Little girls can be the most viscous things on the planet!!

....or off

reply to post by kro32


Everyone who replied to you told you what a 30 rnd magazine is for and still you don't listen.I won't repeat what you don't want to read.I never said anything about legally avalible. I said legally owned.The problem is with illegally purchased and owned guns.Just because a gun is legally avalible doesn't mean it was legally purchased.Felons are not allowed to own guns of any kind.Guess how they get them.Open your mind and learn about guns. The biggest problem with anti-anything people is their ignorance of what they want to ban.

Originally posted by kro32

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.

Holy crap " of course it is going to go up": "lib think" is laughable.

That entire "poll" question assumes there are currently NO guns on your campus ; because they are not "allowed".( laughable at best!).Do you actually think some pissed off unstable loner with a glock and a grudge is gonna check to see if guns are not allowed on campus?

Next you're gonna try telling me there are no gays in the military because they are not allowed(?)
AND In case you didn't think past the child target with all the holes in the head: a gun with an extended 30 round magazine IS HARDER TO CONCEAL!

Originally posted by kro32Now 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.

You are probably around far more guns than you realize. Hi cap(30round ) handgun mags are not as popular as this ad makes it look.

Afraid of being shot everyday ? Seek help.

Originally posted by kro32
Cool, can't wait to get my hands on that portable rocket launcher for self defense.

Also I am curious as to why you limit it to any man portable weapon. Obviously you think there comes a point when weaponry becomes too powerful for the average law abiding citizen to be trusted with so I wonder why you draw the line there.

According to your logic above there should be no limit as to what we should or should not be able to own as far as weaponry goes.

edit on 18-4-2011 by kro32 because: added more

More extreme "lib think" Guns are merely tools.

That's like telling my wife because I "need" to buy a garden shovel to turn over the garden soil; I've called in a paving contractor to pave a pad to park the new John Deere tracked excavator I ordered.

You keep your "rocket launcher or flame thrower"; I'm just fine with my 1911( proper tool for the job).

Originally posted by kro32

Originally posted by idonotcollectstamps
reply to post by kro32

 

I think Charles Whitman would have a shot or two to say to you. He was a trained Marine rifleman who manages to snipe nearly 50 people on a Texas Campus. If someone wants to kill you they are going to do it. Crazy is crazy. Shooting off a 30 round magazine at strangers is a mark of insanity, not a mark of someone fighting over a girl. Normal people do not go on shooting sprees. CRAZY PEOPLE DO! Anyone can be effected by insanity.

A 30 round handgun magazine ban would be just the beginning I am afraid. The next thing would be the caliber of the bullet. Why do you need a .45 round? That is so large it is only meant to kill people. It is a tactical cop killer round designed to kill not for self defense. Hollow points? Those have to go as well. Why can you fire off ten bullets in two seconds and then reload in one second? make a law so that you cannot carry more than one extra magazine on your person. Make a law that says a trigger cannot fire faster than one time per second. You want to carry TWO handguns at the same time? No sorry only one from now on. Why do you need to own more than one handgun if you can't carry more than one gun at the same time? Only allowed to own one from now on and on and on and on and on and on until you are not allowed to own a handgun at all because they are only used to kill college kids in drunken girlfriend rages.

Yes you are right that if someone goes crazy they are going to go after you no matter what. My point was how I can increase my chances of survival if that does happen.

Well Here's a foreign concept: "you can take responsibility for your own carcass and defend yourself and your classmates"...

Originally posted by kro32

And you have a very good point about where do you stop and that's why debates and forums and people discussing the issue is important. Society will determine as a consensus what they feel is appropriate and we will live with that.

I'm very against my state allowing students to carry concealed weapons however I am not for banning guns at all. My only concern is that if the law passes and they are allowed to carry I would prefer something maybe not as deadly. This would include automatic weapons or guns with large magazines and what not.

I know all guns can be deadly but in my situation it will not be highly trained people carrying the guns. It will more than likely be some dumb college kid who is looking for trouble more than anything so my statements are not directed at responsible gun owners out there who I believe should own whatever they want really. I know they aren't gonna be sitting in class next to me all pissed off cause they just got a D on the term paper and are fingering their gun under their jacket staring at the professor.

And you and "hand gun violence for truth"(?) are just the persons to read minds from D.C. and know who the dangerous ones are?

Murder is illegal. Did our little paper "Stephanie target" (in the o.p.) die from here 3rd head wound? The11th?the 15th?Or was it the 27th round finished her off?

reply to post by kro32

Originally posted by kro32
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.

I just got a chance to sit down and catch up on this thread and I saw your added little edit that wasn't there when I finished posting in the discussion with you the other night. So, I figured that I'd address it, too.

My reply is that I'm sorry if you are having such a hard time with this crippling paranoia that gun owners are out to get you and make you bleed, but compared to the possibility of my rights being infringed, I don't have much sympathy for you. When I am paying ungodly amounts of money per hour to use the shooting range and I have to spend the majority of my time reloading over and over instead of shooting (like I'm paying to do), I don't have much sympathy for you.

Since you can't be bothered with taking some responsibility for your own safety, you decide that you like the idea in this ad because it doesn't require anything from you? Right? You get to be as lazy as you want and not look to insure your own safety, but to say guns shouldn't be allowed on my campus because someone might be ticked at me and want to do something "bad" to me? Right? Because, having read your arguments, that is exactly what you are saying. Sorry, but no. You do not have the right to infringe on the rights of others based solely on your own paranoia. No matter your protestations to the contrary, you absolutely are in fact arguing that you want the rights of some infringed because you have some emotional response to an ad you saw.

Your argument about this hypothetical kid on your campus that you keep referring back to, the one with the girlfriend issues that has you so worried? Don't screw around with other people's girlfriends and you won't have to worry about this being a problem. In the mean time, take responsibility for your own self and stop demanding that other people be forced to be stripped of their rights so that you can be lazy.

Take care,
Cindi

Everyone who is arguing with the anti-gun crowd here is wasting their time. the only way they will change their mind is when they are victimized by a criminal and have no means of self defense - but of course it is to late that point.

The best thing to do is write your elected representative and condemn ads like this and ensure they know what the majority thinks.

reply to post by kro32


True, and as much as I would LOVE to have an M1 Abrams, not sure I could afford the gas, little lone the ammo.. but I agree.

Grim

reply to post by kro32

I'm not an expert in guns or stuff and certainly don't want to see that right taken away but

For some reason I don't believe you. This is the typical first statement of an anti gun person... I don't want to ban them BUT........

is there something your gonna use a 30 round clip for that you couldn't use a smaller one for.

Yeah, shooting 30 rounds without having to reload. Why is it anybodies business?
Why do you 'need' a 12 inch knife in your kitchen? It can be used to pierce someones chest and go right through their heart. Maybe we should make it illegal to own any knife over 2 inches. You can still cut your food with it, it will just take a little more effort.

It might make it less accessable to criminals which would be a good thing.

Nothing is less accessible to criminals. It is the law abiding citizen who is forced to jump through hoops and deal with do-nothing laws to enjoy their 2nd amendment right.

And where do you draw the line at what is too much? Would you have a problem with grenade launchers being legal?

I draw the line at this ... If the Gov't gives itself a right to use something on me, I should have the same right to use it back on them. They are not perfect. They are not some form of deity. They are not special. They are not above the law.

And by the way, you're showing your ignorance on the matter. Grenade launchers are perfectly legal. You can go out right now and buy one if you pass a background check. Where oh where are all the mass casualties on our streets from grenade explosions?

Oh that's right. Law abiding firearm owners usually don't go around shooting up the place.

Good points and I agree with most of them but certainly making some guns illegal makes them less readily accessable.

There's that 'BUT' again. Making something illegal does not make it less accessible. Crack anyone? Heroin? Maybe just a little weed?

My state, Arizona, is trying to make it legal for students to carry concealed weapons on campus and I have a serious problem with that. If you saw all the alcohol and petty fights over dates and stuff you'd be nervous too.

Understood, and I can actually see your point. However, LEGAL concealed carry gun owners generally don't go around shooting people. They know they have been fingerprinted and their gun is registered and directly traceable back to them. Has the campus banned alcohol consumption? How'd that work out? If it hasn't maybe that should be banned too. How many alcohol related deaths are their among college students every year? Hmmm......

"petty fights over dates and stuff" .... Maybe people shouldn't try to screw their buddies girlfriend and he won't want to shoot you.

If I wanted to buy an illegal gun I wouldn't have the first clue on where to get one but if that gun was carried in the local gun store it would be no problem for me to go buy it.

Marijuana is not sold legally in local stores but could you get some if you wanted to? On a college campus?
I bet you can obtain a gun illegally just as easily if you really wanted to.

Most of the kids on campus aren't criminals either but according to you it would be ok if they carried fully automatic uzi's strapped over their shoulder?

Here we go ...... Waiting for the nuclear weapon argument

What purpose would owning a bazooka have for anyone.

Getting there.... Wait for it .....

So we should allow average citizens access to biological and nuclear weapons?

I love it.

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"

Never. A gun is an inanimate object. It is not evil. By itself it is not dangerous. Many things can be used to cause harm or death that are sold in stores. I can do some serious damage just picking up some stuff in the cleaning isle at the local supermarket.

I feel Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga CD's should NOT be allowed to be sold in stores. But hey, we all have opinions.

or the local car dealership selliing fully armed tanks to the general public?

You can buy a tank. Fully armed would be nice....so yes.

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.

Of course nothing. Your guessing and making things up. And I don't think I heard anyone advocate overthrowing the government.

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 ..

How did he get high? Aren't illegal drugs ... well. .... illegal????

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.

Or someone else with their LEGAL gun could possibly pick him off after 1 or 2 before he kills 10 people, whether his was legal or not. You know ... that whole self defense thing.

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 has it now migrated from concealed carry w/ high cap mags on campus to people with 'legal access to these weapons'? Were my earlier suspicions correct or have you just chosen your words poorly?

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.

You are much more likely to die from one of those drunk college kids driving drunk or high than from a firearm. Prohibition didn't work either. Maybe cars should be banned on campus. So, you'll have to walk or take a bus in and out. If it keeps drunk kids from driving out onto the highways so be it. I would have no sympathy for you either.

Adding more bullets will not make me any safer but it certainly will increase my danger level.

False. If someone points a gun at you and pulls the trigger it matters not if they have 10 bullets or 30. If he misses after shooting 10 rounds you should be gone by then, or shooting back.

There have been no shootings on my campus because guns are not allowed.

Correlation does not equal causation. There have been no shootings on your campus because the flying spaghetti monster has never visited.

Once again, nobody has a right to a 30 round clip. Perhaps you should read the constitution before posting your ignorance for everyone to see.

If you actually understood the constitution (anyone can read it) you wouldn't have made that statement.

Maybe ... probably .... might have to ..... what if ..... possibility .... I think ...... may .... likely

I swear some people just like to make stuff up to support their argument.

Indeed.


Look. I understand your concern but here's the thing.

Freedom.

Ever hear the saying "Freedom isn't free" ? Many have but never thought about what that means. What it comes down to is something like this....

The price of freedom is that some people will abuse that freedom. You can't take care of the problem by taking freedom away. You don't take away the freedoms of everyone because of the crimes of the few. If you want to be free you must allow others to be free. When you start wanting to take away things you don't like you give others the opportunity to take away things you do like.

Will someone in the future be killed by a legal gun owner with a high cap magazine. Likely. Should we take away EVERYONES right because some whack job could possibly commit a crime? OR, do we accept that with freedom comes some risk?

Personally, I accept that there is risk and would much rather live free to do what I please rather than have to bow down to whatever our overlords decide that they know is 'for our own good'.

Banning things does not work.

Murder is banned.
Rape is banned.
Drunk driving is banned.
Many drugs are banned.
In most places in the US prostitution is banned.
Theft is banned.
Buying guns on the street illegally is banned.
Etc ... Etc.... Etc ....

It simply does not work and creates a black market, leading to more criminals.

reply to post by kro32


According to the Constitution and the founding fathers, there should be no limit as to what we can own.

Where does the government get the power to own tanks, missiles, or nukes?

In the U.S., all governmental power is derived from the people. The people cannot delegate a power they do not already have themselves.

Your argument is one giant sack of failure.