Those crazy New Zealanders....whatever happened to thoughts and prayers?

[thilanliyan]

What are you gonna do when there may come a time we have to remove a dictator/spy (hint hint) from office and you have banned all guns?

Lol, you really think the American government's military power would be overwhelmed by some disorganized militia's?!

 

[SMOGZINN]

When will it be realized that the weapons are not the issue? Since the dawn of man we have been killing each other and it will not stop until humans no longer live on this planet.

If we accept your premise that people are going to kill each other and there is not a whole lot we can do about that, then it would seem to be wise to work on limiting how many of us can be killed by a single individual that has decided to kill. That is the point of gun control. No one thinks we can stop people from killing each other at all, but we think we can limit how many they can kill before we can stop them.

What are you gonna do when there may come a time we have to remove a dictator/spy (hint hint) from office and you have banned all guns?

Ask the military and police to remove him. Because if they back him there is nothing that you and your small arms are going to do to make a lick of difference. Every gun owning citizen in the US is completely out classed by military equipment that is already illegal for you to own.

 

[VRAMdemon]

"Thoughts And Prayers"??

The State Department held a Christian's only media event yesterday. I mean, technically it was only "faith based media" but since they refuse to release a transcript or even who was invited, it's quite safe to assume and the White House is free to prove that wrong.

 

[Bird222]

If we accept your premise that people are going to kill each other and there is not a whole lot we can do about that, then it would seem to be wise to work on limiting how many of us can be killed by a single individual that has decided to kill. That is the point of gun control. No one thinks we can stop people from killing each other at all, but we think we can limit how many they can kill before we can stop them.



Ask the military and police to remove him. Because if they back him there is nothing that you and your small arms are going to do to make a lick of difference. Every gun owning citizen in the US is completely out classed by military equipment that is already illegal for you to own.

Hopefully we won't have to find out but I seem to remember that a totally 'outgunned' set of colonies seem to have won a war. But we REALLY won't have a chance if we're all disarmed.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Hopefully we won't have to find out but I seem to remember that a totally 'outgunned' set of colonies seem to have won a war. But we REALLY won't have a chance if we're all disarmed.

You are completely wrong about that. Of the two armies the Continental Army was the better outfitted in general, and had better weapons.

 

[Bird222]

Hopefully we won't have to find out but I seem to remember that a totally 'outgunned' set of colonies seem to have won a war.

You are completely wrong about that. Of the two armies the Continental Army was the better outfitted in general, and had better weapons.

Cool so you're saying we need even better weapons.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hopefully we won't have to find out but I seem to remember that a totally 'outgunned' set of colonies seem to have won a war. But we REALLY won't have a chance if we're all disarmed.

There was the minor matter of being allied with the French. Nearly half of the troops who won the battle of Yorktown were French. Basically all the guns used were imported, as well.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Cool so you're saying we need even better weapons.

Would you really feel comfortable knowing that just about anyone could own military hardware? Random people could own heat seeking missiles for example? High explosive mortars on clearance in Walmart?

 

[Commodus]

Here's a practical use for you. My self-defense is my business. The anti-gun crowds' arguments are going to have to get a lot better to convince me otherwise. What are you gonna do when there may come a time we have to remove a dictator/spy (hint hint) from office and you have banned all guns? Check Bill Maher's opening from this past Friday. A lot of you need to reevaluate your positions.

You don't need a semi-auto rifle to defend your business. Unless you think you're going to be fending off several armed invaders at long range, in which case you're probably as good as dead regardless. In fact, it's probably counter-productive since it would be easier to grab a rifle across a counter or desk and turn the situation against you.

Also, did you actually read what I wrote? I didn't call for a complete ban on guns. I called for applying some basic logic. You don't need an AR-15 to protect yourself in the tight spaces of an office, a store or a home, and it's not going to save you from the US military if you get to fulfill your Red Dawn fantasies.

 

[Bird222]

Would you really feel comfortable knowing that just about anyone could own military hardware? Random people could own heat seeking missiles for example? High explosive mortars on clearance in Walmart?

No. With higher explosive power would come more restrictions. I'm not one of those people who think the 2A has no limit but it is not nearly as low as bolt action rifles especially when most gun crimes aren't even committed with the kinds of weapons most people propose to ban.

 

[Bird222]

You don't need a semi-auto rifle to defend your business. Unless you think you're going to be fending off several armed invaders at long range, in which case you're probably as good as dead regardless. In fact, it's probably counter-productive since it would be easier to grab a rifle across a counter or desk and turn the situation against you.

Also, did you actually read what I wrote? I didn't call for a complete ban on guns. I called for applying some basic logic. You don't need an AR-15 to protect yourself in the tight spaces of an office, a store or a home, and it's not going to save you from the US military if you get to fulfill your Red Dawn fantasies.

First I have no 'Red Dawn' fantasies. Second, you don't get to tell me what I need to defend myself or my business. I realize we're not going to agree but some of you guys might want to consider that guns might not be so bad especially with what we have seen lately. Statistically you don't need insurance either but when you need it, you need it.

 

[sandorski]

Hopefully we won't have to find out but I seem to remember that a totally 'outgunned' set of colonies seem to have won a war. But we REALLY won't have a chance if we're all disarmed.

Is France gonna declare War on the US Government forces?

 

[Jhhnn]

No. With higher explosive power would come more restrictions. I'm not one of those people who think the 2A has no limit but it is not nearly as low as bolt action rifles especially when most gun crimes aren't even committed with the kinds of weapons most people propose to ban.

You mean Libs are trying to ban weapons that aren't really useful in civilian hands other than as toys & implements of mass murder?

 

[Bird222]

You mean Libs are trying to ban weapons that aren't really useful in civilian hands other than as toys & implements of mass murder?

Define useful. In that video above, I would definitely like to have an AR vs. a bolt action. Like I said, when you need it you need it.

 

[Commodus]

First I have no 'Red Dawn' fantasies. Second, you don't get to tell me what I need to defend myself or my business. I realize we're not going to agree but some of you guys might want to consider that guns might not be so bad especially with what we have seen lately. Statistically you don't need insurance either but when you need it, you need it.

Actually, people already do tell you what you need to defend yourself. You're not allowed to own a rocket launcher, a tank or an attack helicopter, so explain to me: why do you think you need a semi-auto rifle to defend your business? I want to hear the specific reasons why you need that versus, say, a pistol. Do you expect threats to approach at long distances? Are you a mediocre shot and need the stock and sights to improve your aim? Do you regularly have to deal with several people threatening you at once, and a pistol magazine just wouldn't be enough?

And like I said, I and many others aren't calling for a complete ban on guns. We just find it amusing when people claim they 'need' a gun whose primary purpose is to kill as many people as possible, not to neutralize invaders or hunt tonight's dinner.

 

[SMOGZINN]

No. With higher explosive power would come more restrictions. I'm not one of those people who think the 2A has no limit but it is not nearly as low as bolt action rifles especially when most gun crimes aren't even committed with the kinds of weapons most people propose to ban.

So we both agree that the 2A has limits, we are just arguing about where those limits are. I would argue that there is little difference between a AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and that heat seeking missile. Both are intended to kill a lot of people fast. That is in truth the only real purpose of both of them.

I do believe that the muzzle load, bolt action, breech, or revolver type weapons should be the only allowable civilian firearms. There is little you can not defend yourself against with those that you can defend yourself against with a semiautomatic weapon. Semiautomatic weapons are mostly useful in blind fire and assault type of situations. Those are the exact sort of things we do not want people doing.

 

[Bird222]

Actually, people already do tell you what you need to defend yourself. You're not allowed to own a rocket launcher, a tank or an attack helicopter, so explain to me: why do you think you need a semi-auto rifle to defend your business? I want to hear the specific reasons why you need that versus, say, a pistol. Do you expect threats to approach at long distances? Are you a mediocre shot and need the stock and sights to improve your aim? Do you regularly have to deal with several people threatening you at once, and a pistol magazine just wouldn't be enough?

And like I said, I and many others aren't calling for a complete ban on guns. We just find it amusing when people claim they 'need' a gun whose primary purpose is to kill as many people as possible, not to neutralize invaders or hunt tonight's dinner.

True we do have regulations (a lot actually) and I'm not against all regulations. We are not all the same, some people have physical problems where a bolt action doesn't work for them (which is why people should choose for themselves). Sure there could be threats from long ranges. A long gun is preferable to a pistol. Generally speaking, you have a better aim with a rifle. You might be surprised that most people can't hit the side of a barn past 15 feet. Yes, there could be several threats at once. The semi-auto function just doesn't seem that big of a deal to me especially in a rifle but the AR seems to be the first thing everybody wants to ban when a mass shooting happens but most gun violence is not committed by rifles. It just seems so disingenuous.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Here's a practical use for you. My self-defense is my business. The anti-gun crowds' arguments are going to have to get a lot better to convince me otherwise. What are you gonna do when there may come a time we have to remove a dictator/spy (hint hint) from office and you have banned all guns? Check Bill Maher's opening from this past Friday. A lot of you need to reevaluate your positions.

I was always a fence-sitter about this, although the Muhammed and Malvo killings of 2002 made an impression on me. I had actually frequented the shopping area where one person was killed, and I remember using the same gas-station where another died. I could've stayed in the area three more years, and become a victim.

You don't need an AR-15 to defend your home. The advice of a retired policeman suggests that a good pump-action shot-gun is a better choice, with less risk of killing a neighbor with a stray bullet. When an intruder hears you rack that sucker, they're likely to bolt before you can pull the trigger.

If it's some fantasy you have about "per-teckting yur freee-doms" and overthrowing the government -- get some folks together and raid a federal armory. Steal your guns. John Brown did. Or at least -- he tried before being tried in a court and sent to the gallows.

It was after the Sandy Hook child murders that I decided I could oppose citizen access to an AR-15. Then, the shootings in Las Vegas added to my conviction. Bump-stocks and large capacity magazines -- even for semi-auto pistols like those used in the Tucson shooting of 2010 -- should not be available.

Keep an eye on New Zealand, though. They didn't waste any time. Let's see if they're happy with the solution. I'd bet on it.

When you live in a country with more guns than people, you have to question the wisdom of the status quo. And when 40% of an electorate are like Rick Santorum and can't see a narcissistically disordered sociopath for what he is, you have to question the wisdom of their other choices -- telling us we must have open-carry and stand-your-ground laws, assault weapons and other wonderful things.

I think it's possible to infer more ignorance from very obvious observable ignorance. The truly-ignorant are always the last to admit their ignorance to themselves and others. People who are a lot more brilliant than our Asshole president imagines himself to be, call themselves stupid or ignorant all the time. That could be a useful rule-of-thumb; like pornography, you will know an Asshole when you see one.

 

[SMOGZINN]

True we do have regulations (a lot actually) and I'm not against all regulations. We are not all the same, some people have physical problems where a bolt action doesn't work for them (which is why people should choose for themselves). Sure there could be threats from long ranges. A long gun is preferable to a pistol. Generally speaking, you have a better aim with a rifle. You might be surprised that most people can't hit the side of a barn past 15 feet. Yes, there could be several threats at once. The semi-auto function just doesn't seem that big of a deal to me especially in a rifle but the AR seems to be the first thing everybody wants to ban when a mass shooting happens but most gun violence is not committed by rifles. It just seems so disingenuous.

Those threats could also be in body armor, or driving armored vehicles, or combat aircraft. What if the threat was an entire city on another continent? You would be surprised to learn that most people have no idea how to destroy an entire city in an instant. Yet everyone seems to think that intercontinental ballistic missiles should be banned. It just seems so disingenuous.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Actually, I just flip-flopped on the post I just made a half hour ago.

That Asshole Blowhard was on TV again, acting like he'd be around for another six years.

As much as the True Believers in the process are gearing up for the 2020 election, Congress is opening up a plethora of investigations and the Mueller report is due soon, I think the Opposition should start stock-piling weapons and prove Steve King wrong.

I don't want to spend the last years of my life living under the government of that Piece of Filth. If you want to know -- I really wish someone would misplace the bubble-top to the limousine, allowing some miracle to take place.

For that day, I've set aside a bag of tinsel confetti, a CD of Souza's "Stars and Stripes" to blare on my SUV's CD changer, a party hat, kazoo and another noise maker, and some little American flags to mount high on some dowel-rods affixed to my bumpers that barely clear the freeway overpass.

An addition to inventory: a full-size Stars-and-Bars to drag on the pavement from the rear bumper, and a few baseball bats in the back seat just for additional protection.

 

[Jhhnn]

Define useful. In that video above, I would definitely like to have an AR vs. a bolt action. Like I said, when you need it you need it.

Define useful. In that video above, I would definitely like to have an AR vs. a bolt action. Like I said, when you need it you need it.

Yeh, drag out a vid from the Rodney King riots 27 years ago. Looks like the store owners did fine with the guns they had, anyway. And these guys would have scored more hits with AR's I'm sure. Notice how the people they're shooting at aren't even in the picture-

It's OK to be an ammosexual. That doesn't mean the rest of us need to indulge your fantasies.

 

[Bird222]

Yeh, drag out a vid from the Rodney King riots 27 years ago. Looks like the store owners did fine with the guns they had, anyway. And these guys would have scored more hits with AR's I'm sure. Notice how the people they're shooting at aren't even in the picture-

It's OK to be an ammosexual. That doesn't mean the rest of us need to indulge your fantasies.

Drag out the flood from 20 years ago to decide you need insurance. I'm not sure what fantasies you think I have. I sincerely hope I never have to draw a gun on anyone. As with most things in life for me, you choose what's best for you and allow me to do the same. Freedom is messy.

 

[Bird222]

Those threats could also be in body armor, or driving armored vehicles, or combat aircraft. What if the threat was an entire city on another continent? You would be surprised to learn that most people have no idea how to destroy an entire city in an instant. Yet everyone seems to think that intercontinental ballistic missiles should be banned. It just seems so disingenuous.

If the idea is to stop gun violence, it would make much more sense to ban handguns. Start there.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Hopefully we won't have to find out but I seem to remember that a totally 'outgunned' set of colonies seem to have won a war. But we REALLY won't have a chance if we're all disarmed.

You might want to talk to the French about that.

 

[SMOGZINN]

If the idea is to stop gun violence, it would make much more sense to ban handguns. Start there.

I doubt we will ever be able to stop gun violence. The goal is to limit how much damage a person can do before we can stop them, and do so within the framework of our constitution since it is unlikely to change.