White House to Push Gun Control

[SparkyJJO]

OK so in 19 pages we have been told that Obama isnt trying to ban guns but he is looking into banning the 30 round magazines. Why cant we discuss the merits of this issue without talking about banning all guns (something no one is talking about)

I hate reloading.

 

[Zebo]

OK so in 19 pages we have been told that Obama isnt trying to ban guns but he is looking into banning the 30 round magazines. Why cant we discuss the merits of this issue without talking about banning all guns (something no one is talking about)

Duh more bullets in more bad guys so obvious doesn't merit discussion..

 

[xj0hnx]

Perfect reason for why not was the Arizona killings. I see all the gun nuts posting that the reason he was stopped was because the mag jammed. I have seen nothing in "official reports" to support this. Please provide a link if you beleive this to be true.

Also, I don't want to take your guns (or mine), I just think there has to be constraint. No one I know goes hunting with an AK-47.

You're a fool. No one YOU knows goes hunting with an AK, I know people that do, AK's, and AR's. The Giffords shooting didn't happen because of high capacity magazines, and even if the mag didn't jam it still doesn't matter because the magazine did not make that fruit cake got shoot people, and didn't allow him to kill anymore people than more 15 or ten round mags would have.

This threads needs more cow bell ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbiUpjIHIAo

Just because we can ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QavKtVIgFg&feature=related

None of these firearms have ever, nor are they going to, commit a crime ...

 

[speg]

Give me a reason why not? You are in favor of eroding away constitutional rights just because you are anti-gun and do not agree with it. Do you know how dangerous that is? Would you be as fervent in limiting free speech? Somehow I doubt it. So go sit down and think about what you are advocating for a bit before you open your mouth spouting off about how I "need to give you reasons" why I need my constitutional rights.

People like you piss me off. You just sit back and are A-ok with taking away other people's rights just because you do not agree with it. I dont agree with you being able to speak, yet you dont see me out there trying to ban you from talking.

Hell, I bet you personally are ok with going farther. How would you feel about an all-out pistol ban? How would you feel about banning rifles with barrels less than 20 inches? How about shotgun magazine extension tubes? How about an all-out ban? What do you want, being an anti-constitution lefty?

People who can't accept change piss me off.

Do you honestly think "the right to bear arms" from 200 years ago still apples in the same sense in today's modern world? Times have changed so much.

Imagine in another couple hundred years technology is so advanced that you could have mega-death rays capable of destroying entire city blocks. Will you still insist that every person is entitled to bear this weapon?

 

[alkemyst]

You're a fool. No one YOU knows goes hunting with an AK, I know people that do, AK's, and AR's. The Giffords shooting didn't happen because of high capacity magazines, and even if the mag didn't jam it still doesn't matter because the magazine did not make that fruit cake got shoot people, and didn't allow him to kill anymore people than more 15 or ten round mags would have.

This threads needs more cow bell ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbiUpjIHIAo

Just because we can ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QavKtVIgFg&feature=related

None of these firearms have ever, nor are they going to, commit a crime ...

I don't believe in major gun control, but you are really creating a great poster for it.

There are a lot of problems with the 'assault rifle' hunters out there.

 

[soundforbjt]

You're a fool. No one YOU knows goes hunting with an AK, I know people that do, AK's, and AR's. The Giffords shooting didn't happen because of high capacity magazines, and even if the mag didn't jam it still doesn't matter because the magazine did not make that fruit cake got shoot people, and didn't allow him to kill anymore people than more 15 or ten round mags would have.

This threads needs more cow bell ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbiUpjIHIAo

Just because we can ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QavKtVIgFg&feature=related

None of these firearms have ever, nor are they going to, commit a crime ...

Guess the fool above missed the bank robbery in CA with the robbers out-gunned the cops and had body armor to boot. :whiste:

This is why even though I own guns, I don't consider myself to be a "gun-nut", which I'm betting you would fall into my description of one.

 

[alkemyst]

People who can't accept change piss me off.

Do you honestly think "the right to bear arms" from 200 years ago still apples in the same sense in today's modern world? Times have changed so much.

Imagine in another couple hundred years technology is so advanced that you could have mega-death rays capable of destroying entire city blocks. Will you still insist that every person is entitled to bear this weapon?

At the time of gun law formation, the rich having cannons wasn't unheard of.

The spirit of the law was that the people should be armed equally as the government to keep it in check with the people having the advantage.

In today's world people just see some drug addict somehow storming into their lakeside villa with two mac 10's and a LARS rocket and want to ban it.

Meanwhile they show up to trial and start crying at his sob story and ask he be releashed on probation.

 

[alkemyst]

Guess the fool above missed the bank robbery in CA with the robbers out-gunned the cops and had body armour to boot. :whiste:

This is why even though I own guns, I don't consider myself to be a "gun-nut", which I'm betting you would fall into my description of one.

QFT, however; ban 30 rounds and they make a 29...keep doing it and they make it easy to reload.

In the revolver days, fast loaders were the big talk on gun bans.

We are unforunately pushing close to where the people that want are less than the people that follow.

 

[SparkyJJO]

People who can't accept change piss me off.

Do you honestly think "the right to bear arms" from 200 years ago still apples in the same sense in today's modern world? Times have changed so much.

Imagine in another couple hundred years technology is so advanced that you could have mega-death rays capable of destroying entire city blocks. Will you still insist that every person is entitled to bear this weapon?

Slippery slope - start looking at the Constitution as "well this part doesn't apply anymore, things have changed, etc..." Then more and more gets pushed aside until what's the point of the Constitution anymore, it's an old document anyway... See where that can lead to?

Also, similar thing applies to you as to necktard - You don't live here, so your opinion means squat, so don't tell us how to run our country

 

[irishScott]

People who can't accept change piss me off.

Do you honestly think "the right to bear arms" from 200 years ago still apples in the same sense in today's modern world? Times have changed so much.

Imagine in another couple hundred years technology is so advanced that you could have mega-death rays capable of destroying entire city blocks. Will you still insist that every person is entitled to bear this weapon?

And in the meantime the average citizen cannot own an automatic weapon, anti-tank weapon, or any serious quantity of explosives. The extremes you mention are tightly regulated already. Gun rights nowadays are fairly reasonable in most states. There is no reason why I, as a law abiding citizen of stable mentality should not be able to defend my family with a semi-automatic handgun, rifle, or pump shotgun of my choosing, regardless of ammo capacity. There is also no reason why I should not be able to carry a weapon of my choosing on my person. It's at minimum what the criminals have, and it's what your average law enforcement personnel carry.

Law abiding gun owners rarely commit gun crimes. That is a fact not denied by either side. So go worry about the criminals and leave legal gun owners alone.

 

[xj0hnx]

I don't believe in major gun control, but you are really creating a great poster for it.

There are a lot of problems with the 'assault rifle' hunters out there.

No, there's not, only with idiots like you that think that because a gun looks a certain way it is any more dangerous than another.

 

[xj0hnx]

QFT, however; ban 30 rounds and they make a 29...keep doing it and they make it easy to reload.

In the revolver days, fast loaders were the big talk on gun bans.

We are unforunately pushing close to where the people that want are less than the people that follow.

Who's more dangerous, some dumbass gangbanger with full auto Tec 9, or this guy ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DpCellB_UQ

Think this guy cares if they ban 30 round mags? Nope, almost any mid level competition shooter can fire a mag, reload, fire a mag, reload, and fire another mag before TuPac could reload his first, the difference is they will hit their targets.

 

[nick1985]

I don't believe in major gun control, but you are really creating a great poster for it.

There are a lot of problems with the 'assault rifle' hunters out there.

Those are not assault rifles.

 

[nick1985]

People who can't accept change piss me off.

Do you honestly think "the right to bear arms" from 200 years ago still apples in the same sense in today's modern world? Times have changed so much.

Imagine in another couple hundred years technology is so advanced that you could have mega-death rays capable of destroying entire city blocks. Will you still insist that every person is entitled to bear this weapon?

/Looks at your location.



Piss off, pussy.

 

[soundforbjt]

Who's more dangerous, some dumbass gangbanger with full auto Tec 9, or this guy ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DpCellB_UQ

Think this guy cares if they ban 30 round mags? Nope, almost any mid level competition shooter can fire a mag, reload, fire a mag, reload, and fire another mag before TuPac could reload his first, the difference is they will hit their targets.

Thanks for proving my point!

Do you think a nut or criminal will train to be able to do the above, No, so why give them the tools to be able to do the same damage? Do you think they care what or who they hit? The guy in Arizona wouldn't have been able to do the amount of damage he did with a single 10 or 12 shot clip.

 

[xj0hnx]

And in the meantime the average citizen cannot own an automatic weapon,

Yes, we can What's really funny about it is that the "Assault" Weapons Ban ...didn't ban assault weapons. The piece of legislature that put a dent in automatic weapons was the '86 Firearms Owners Protection Act, the Hughes Amendment specifically, which stated that you could no longer manufacture, or import machine guns for civilian purposes. All this did was make the existing stock of transferable machine guns in America very expensive. Anyone with minor gunsmith skill can convert almost any semi auto, self loading, blowback firearm into a full auto, but amazingly the use of full autos in crimes is VERY, VERY rare.

 

[xj0hnx]

Thanks for proving my point!

Do you think a nut or criminal will train to be able to do the above, No, so why give them the tools to be able to do the same damage? Do you think they care what or who they hit? The guy in Arizona wouldn't have been able to do the amount of damage he did with a single 10 or 12 shot clip.

You're right, he could have done more. A big awkward magazine sticking out of the bottom of the pistol probably did more to hender his ability to hit people than the capacity helped. All there are now are "what if's", we could debate the what would have happened if ...until the end of the world, but the fact is that if some lunatics goal is maximum damage, than all the bans on scary looking things in the world isn't going to stop them. He could have done a shit ton more damage with a pipe bomb in a backpack. The reality is that the magazines didn't do anything to help him that he couldn't have done in another means. He could have perched a couple blocks away with a 30-06, and then pretty much no one that was injured would be alive. If he had used a .44 mag there wouldn't be a miraculous recovery story right now.

This is why nothing effective ever gets done by gun control advocates, they are approaching the problem completely wrong.

 

[nick1985]

Thanks for proving my point!

Do you think a nut or criminal will train to be able to do the above, No, so why give them the tools to be able to do the same damage? Do you think they care what or who they hit? The guy in Arizona wouldn't have been able to do the amount of damage he did with a single 10 or 12 shot clip.

The standard for the pistol he was carrying is 15 round mags. I would argue, due to his jam, he would have done more damage carrying 15 rounders than his stupid 30 rounds. I can drop a mag and slap in a new one in less than 1 second, and probably faster than that. I assume(based on your poor gun terminology) that you are ignorant of firearms and think it takes time to reload. It takes virtually no time whatsoever, I can fire continually assuming I had a few mags on me. You would hardly notice I even reloaded. If the Tuscon shooter had 15 rounders, I contend he would have gotten more shots off than he did.

Not to mention the 30 round mags he had completely through off the balance of the gun by being so bottom heavy. I bet his accuracy suffered. Pistols are designed to be accurate and balanced with their standard mags. Once you start throwing all that extra weight into the mag-well, your balance suffers and so does your accuracy, not to mention the jamming issues that occur because of it as well.

30 round pistol mags are not the problem. Skitzo's getting guns when they should have been flagged, are.

 

[Powermoloch]

i don't have a gun, so i could care less.

 

[Zebo]

Skitzo's getting guns when they should have been flagged, are.

Yup cops were called on him at least 10 different times after going crazy in public and they did nothing. This was a law enforcement failure nothing else. Then that Sherriff had the chutzpah to cover his ass blaming tea party and guns instead of nut his office failed to take into custody.

Almost all shootings are law enforcement fail or justice system fail. Criminals get out with a mile long violent rap sheet or like here not prosecuted or evaluated after violent outbursts.

Fact is there are 300,000,000 guns out there where people function just fine with them and use them as a safe tool.

 

[nick1985]

i don't have a gun, so i could care less.

Horrible attitude. You remain silent just because they are trying to erode rights you don't care about? What if they were trying to erode rights you do practice?

This passive attitude at the erosion of Constitutional rights is just wrong. You should be upset over this, even though you are not a gun owner.

 

[Brigandier]

Horrible attitude. You remain silent just because they are trying to erode rights you don't care about? What if they were trying to erode rights you do practice?

This passive attitude at the erosion of Constitutional rights is just wrong. You should be upset over this, even though you are not a gun owner.

Most people will never need a gun. My guns are in the country, and unfortunately, a lot see guns as a "country" thing, and who really cares if they get taken away?

 

[Zebo]

Most people will never need a gun. My guns are in the country, and unfortunately, a lot see guns as a "country" thing, and who really cares if they get taken away?

If I lived in Inglewood I'd not only carry, I'd have my hands in jacket with palm on the handle of my hamerless revolver. Country not so much. I don't carry.

I used to go to lakers games when forum was there and damn near was killed a few times no way would I go unarmed.

 

[Brigandier]

If I lived in Inglewood I'd not only carry, I'd have my hands in jacket with palm on the handle of my revolver. Country not so much. I don't carry.

I used to go to lakers games when forum was there and damn near was killed a few times no way would I go unarmed.

I've spent some decent time in cities, and in bad neighborhoods. I never carried, and I never felt threatened, why? Because I didn't have shit and I didn't walk like I was the shit, I walked like I was there. Attitude goes way further in the "hood" than a gun will. It's just funny, because you carry in the city, and I carry in the country.

 

[Zebo]

I've spent some decent time in cities, and in bad neighborhoods. I never carried, and I never felt threatened, why? Because I didn't have shit and I didn't walk like I was the shit, I walked like I was there. Attitude goes way further in the "hood" than a gun will. It's just funny, because you carry in the city, and I carry in the country.

Sometimes it's not your choice. Especially with gangs of today who beat on outsiders for shits and giggles. Your only choice is to be a victim or defend yourself.