Yes, they really do want your guns.

a reply to: joemoe

Military here. This is the line in the sand for most of us. That will be the day we don't report for duty.

I've only read the first page of this thread and already I want to reply to a couple of posts.

a reply to: joemoe

How about defending your freedom?

When have the American people had the need to use guns etc that have more than 25 rounds to 'defend their freedom'?

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

What about fighting a tyrannical government.....

And which 'tyrannical government' would that be?

I'm not going to argue about The Second Amendment, that horse has bolted and for good or bad gun ownership is far too engrained in American culture for European style gun control laws to work.
Anyone who thinks that really has no understanding of the US and its people.

It seems to me that the problem is how do you prevent the extremists, criminals and lunatics from gaining access to weapons without infringing on the rights of the millions of responsible gun owners?

I don't profess to have any of the answers but when people casually dismiss valid points like 'why does any law abiding citizen need to own weapons with more than 25 rounds' or automatic weapons out of hand without giving it any serious and reasonable consideration then there is really no hope for anything to change.
And in that case I guess you have no option but to sit back and accept these mass shootings on a regular basis.

Seems to me that there is a huge number of people in The Land of The Free who aren't even willing to enter into any sort of reasoned discussion about the obvious affliction that is killing so many innocent American people.

I know I'll get slated for posting this and at the end of the day, not my problem and America will only do as America see's fit.

a reply to: Freeborn
You asked when american citizens needed their guns?


www.washingtonpost.com... ment/
www.npr.org...

The govt backed down from the armed citizens who stopped tyranny.

It was EXACTLY what the 2nd was written for.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Meanwhile hundreds of innocent people are getting killed.

I understand gun ownership is engrained in the American psyche and to a large extent I can more or less agree with it.

But something needs to change, or you simply have to accept these mass shootings as a price you pay for your right to own guns, as it stands at present.

I see members who I have enormous respect for and who are usually reasoned and willing to discuss alternative viewpoints but when it comes to gun ownership its all 'its out god given rights', 'its enshrined in The Constitution' etc and are completely and utterly close minded on the subject.
Fair enough, that's entirely up to them.
But be open and honest and say that you are prepared to accept these killings as a cost for your Second Amendment Rights.

Personally I think this increase in mass shootings is a reflection and as a result of a far deeper malaise that is eating away at US society.
And until you enter into open and honest and public debate on the subject without immediately shouting down anyone and everyone with a different opinion nothing will change, it might even get worse.

Of course its an incredibly complex issue with no easy solutions, but I'm sure with the collective will and spirit of the American people you should be able to start addressing these issues.

a reply to: Freeborn
Horsecrap
2a was written to combat tyranny period
When shown a recent example of that its innocents are getting killed.
Bullcrap
Nobody cares about the innocents in chicago.
It is a power move to take guns PERIOD.

Were it about innocent lives HANDGUNS would be the target.

Nice try tho

a reply to: shooterbrody

Just calling it as I see it from the outside looking in.

Obviously you only took from that post what you wanted to.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: shooterbrody

Just calling it as I see it from the outside looking in.

Obviously you only took from that post what you wanted to.

You are VERY welcome to stay OUTSIDE and leave our RIGHTS alone.
From the outside you dont get the whole picture.
We ARE NOT you.
We do not wish to be you.

Hell you cant even separate yourselves from the eu.
Clean up your own crap pile.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Very predictable reply.

As for the UK and Brexit; yes, its a complete farce.
Let down by self-interested and self-promoting careerist politicians and an out dated and unfit for purpose parliamentary system.

I've never suggested we don't have our own problems......but they aren't the topic under 'discussion' in this thread.

a reply to: Freeborn
So what if you think it is "predictable".
It is our right and frankly duty to keep and bear arms to repulse tyranny.
Those who dont have such would not understand it.
Not suprising.
You asked for an example I provided it.
Too bad you dont like it.
We do have citizens that will stand up.

NONE of the new laws called for would have stopped EITHER attack.
It is a power grab. PERIOD.

It is ok tho.
It will lead to the dems massive defeat in 2020.

why do I need a high capacity magazine?

1. because the police have them.
Why do the police need them? Whatever answer they give is the answer I want to give. If they say it cuts down on casualties in their ranks, well, then, I want fewer casualties for my family and my neighbors, etc. The cops are never around when you need them, which is fundamentally why you need your own gun in some parts of the US. If the police need a large mag, then I'll need one for the nights when no officer is present. I am fundamentally not less of a citizen, than one who holds a peace officer's commission. I'm their equal, at least in theory. And especially if they are not present or refuse to engage (like the cop at the high school in Florida).

2. Because the border gang hit squads have them.
Sur 13, crips, bloods, gangster disciples, Little Kings, et al, use assault rifles (usually imported from Mexico). T

3. Most home invasions in the US are perpetrated with automatic rifles, equipped will large magazines.
Especially in states that have banned high capacity magazines.

4. The 'less-than-lethal' nature of the rounds fired requires multiple shots to "stop the bad guy." seriously, like 3+

Re - High capacity magazines. Why does anyone need a street legal car that is capable of going 200 MPH when the highest speed limit you're likely to find is ~80 (and even that is pretty absurd for people to be going that fast when they're sharing the road with people of all ages and mental states and even "intellectually challenged" people).

Seriously. There are street legal cars with 600 HP (and probably even higher). Gee. I wonder what kind of a person would buy one of those. I'm sure they'd never drive irresponsibly.

If it comes down to a question of "why do you need this?" you can ask that question often about all sorts of things that have nothing to do with guns. People have their closets stuffed full of clothes they never wear. People buy obnoxiously excessive vehicles. People buy houses they don't need. People watch stupid, mind-rotting movies and TV shows and music and books that have malicious subtexts they aren't even aware of (I'm all for free speech but part of the reason why we even are where we are is because the same people who are trying to take away your rights right now hid behind free speech for decades and polluted the general atmosphere in movies, music and literature with garbage that was anything but pro-freedom).

Yeah. Those are the people who love their own rights and hate yours if they don't like you. Or (IOW) they don't believe in rights (because rights can't be taken away or given). They believe in privilege and they believe they're the privileged ones because you don't march to their tune.

originally posted by: carewemust
There is no good reason for any gun that holds more than 25 rounds to be available to the public.

This is such a misguided statement to make. Gun related deaths rank 15th on the list of top 20 things you're most likely to die from living in the US.

The number one cause of death in the US is heart disease. If you want to protest something go protest why McDonald's puts 20 times the fat, salt, and sugar in their foods which creates an addiction greater than nicotine.

Stop buying into the BS political gun control hype.

You and the rest of the 327 million people living int he US are more likely to die from the below culprits first before ever being involved in a mass shooting:

Heart Disease
Cancer
Accidents
Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseases
Stroke
Alzheimer's
Diabetes
Influenza & Pneumonia
Kidney Disease
Suicide
Septicemia
Chronic Liver Disease and Cirrhosis

a reply to: Graysen

Do you have data for points 2, 3, and 4 or are you just repeating things you saw on Facebook?

a reply to: Shamrock6

Imagine the nationwide bloodbath that would ensue during a "gun grab." Bodies of both gun owners and gun grabbers, as well as probably tens of thousands of children caught up in the crossfire lining the streets, awaiting pickup as the morgues are overfilled.

What will they do in rural areas? Send Tac teams to each farm, mountain and forest home? How long will it take? How many trillions of dollars will it cost? How long will the Greatest Depression it leads to last? And in what ways will enemy nations take advantage of the situation while our nation destroys itself?

Americans shouldn't have guns, they can't be trusted with them. Like letting a child play with Matches

a reply to: Theyy

You're right.

We just need to rip up that pesky Constitution and replace it with a new and improved one.

One that guarantees our rights to a daily Starbucks Coffee.

One that guarantees our right to never be offended.

One that guarantees our right to have no hardship or unfairness in life.

...to have no privacy for our own safety and security.

...to be totally protected at all times by the government and no right to defend yourself or your property.

...to have free housing, free schooling, free healthcare.

...to be branded and stripped of all rights if your skin is any shade of white, because they are evil.


Yep...sounds like an agenda everyone could get behind.

Especially that Starbucks one...

a reply to: Shamrock6

Google those issues. I did, just now. you find 3 or 4 pages of articles about assault rifles present in home invasions (both by offender and victim), as well as arrests of gang members with 'assault weapons.'

the 5.56x45 NATO was designed to be a small round, so that the gun could function efficiently as a semiautomatic. Because of inertia, the larger traditional cartridges caused slow action cycles and a lot of movement of the gun in the hands of the shooter. So the traditional .45-70 caliber of the old west was converted into a shorter ".45acp" round, and the .30-06 rifle cartridge was nosed down to the .223 used in the M-16 during Vietnam.

why don't police still carry revolvers? because the action is so slow, and a double-action firing sequence makes the shooter's arm wander around will pulling the trigger. Not only are they slower, they are generally less accurate in the hands of a shooter who hasn't trained extensively.

Why does everyone, from cops to robbers, prefer semiautomatic actions for both rifles and pistols?

Because they are faster and easier to use.

The elites want the law-biding homeowner to come in last, behind both cops and robbers.

a reply to: Graysen

You’re the one that made the statements. I’m not researching anything for you. You can either support your assertions or not.

Evidently you choose not to.

ETA - the reason I asked for data is because if you’re going to make claims like that when it comes to a guns debate, using actual facts is incredibly important, and much more important than hyperbole. BJS data is so wildly different from what you’ve claimed that I don’t know how you arrived at the numbers you did. Almost two-thirds of suspects in home invasions are unarmed. I realize that data is several years old but unless the trend has swung in the complete opposite direction by several orders of magnitude in the last few years, your assertion is flat out wrong and complete hyperbole.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
. BJS data is so wildly different from what you’ve claimed that I don’t know how you arrived at the numbers you did. Almost two-thirds of suspects in home invasions are unarmed. .

Did you catch that the DoJ "revised the definition of burglary" to get at those numbers????

They did away with the category of "home invasion," and called it a type of burglary, and then went on to say, that most burglars were unarmed!

These estimates of burglary are based on a revised definition
of burglary from the standard classification in the National
Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Historically, burglary is
classified as a property crime except when someone is home
during the burglary and a household member is attacked or
threatened. When someone is home during a burglary and
experiences violence, NCVS classification rules categorize the
victimization as a personal (rape/sexual assault, robbery, and
aggravated and simple assault) rather than a property crime
(household burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft). In this
report, the definition of household burglary includes
burglaries in which a household member was a victim of a
violent crime (see Methodology).

So, 7% of all home-targeted crimes were home invasions.


Or do you think that 93 percent of home invaders break in empty-handed?

Do they pick the lock on the front door with their fingernails???

Are they pro-wrestlers, and just body slam their victims???


You are the one questioning my assertions. I don't feel the need to write a research paper to please you, especially when you cannot see through the sophmoric doublespeak of the UCR.

originally posted by: carewemust
There is no good reason for any gun that holds more than 25 rounds to be available to the public.

It took 58 rounds to take down the Dayton shooter. Think about that for a minute, grabber.

mobile.twitter.com...