Forums
First  << 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19 >>  Last
Forum Main>>Non Related>>Politics & Law>> Gun Control.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
_TheCrow_

ID: 686314
Level: 40
Posts: 4916
Score: 3137
_TheCrow_ [686314]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Feb 11, 2013 06:10:20
I can't speak for Luke, but I have been robbed at gun point, had my has broken into, been attacked and had my car stolen befor and this wasn't even in the worse areas.

I should add, it's been a while since any of that has happened. See my state has this wonderful open carry law and once I began taking advantage of that law, those things coincidentally haven't happened since. Go figure.

Last Edited: Mon Feb 11, 2013 06:13:30
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Stain92

ID: 1040302
Level: 51
Posts: 701
Score: 526
Stain92 [1040302]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Feb 11, 2013 06:37:27
By _TheCrow_ [686314]
I can't speak for Luke, but I have been robbed at gun point, had my has broken into, been attacked and had my car stolen befor and this wasn't even in the worse areas.


I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sorry if I've come across as bit of a dick, but this issue frustrates me as you can probably tell. A frustrating and interesting thing I've heard a few times is the people who have been robbed at gunpoint, then defend having a gun. To me it advocates more to have reasonable gun control, because even owning a gun yourself, it has done nothing to prevent that situation. You were still held at gunpoint.

Even if you had a firearm on you, and you pulled it, you still could have been shot pulling it, and the likely hood is now you're about to get into a firefight, which is by a nature an extremely dangerous situation.

There is a huge cultural issue present, if people genuinely believe it is important that they must own a gun for the safety, and safety of their family, and don't identify that as a problem. I don't have an issue with people having a gun for home defense if they feel it would be a good idea to have one. But for people to feel like they need a gun for their home, otherwise they're in imminent danger, is just wrong.

Last Edited: Mon Feb 11, 2013 06:37:49
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
_TheCrow_

ID: 686314
Level: 40
Posts: 4916
Score: 3137
_TheCrow_ [686314]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Feb 11, 2013 07:16:21
By Stain92 [1040302]
By _TheCrow_ [686314]
I can't speak for Luke, but I have been robbed at gun point, had my has broken into, been attacked and had my car stolen befor and this wasn't even in the worse areas.


I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sorry if I've come across as bit of a dick, but this issue frustrates me as you can probably tell. A frustrating and interesting thing I've heard a few times is the people who have been robbed at gunpoint, then defend having a gun. To me it advocates more to have reasonable gun control, because even owning a gun yourself, it has done nothing to prevent that situation. You were still held at gunpoint.

Even if you had a firearm on you, and you pulled it, you still could have been shot pulling it, and the likely hood is now you're about to get into a firefight, which is by a nature an extremely dangerous situation.

There is a huge cultural issue present, if people genuinely believe it is important that they must own a gun for the safety, and safety of their family, and don't identify that as a problem. I don't have an issue with people having a gun for home defense if they feel it would be a good idea to have one. But for people to feel like they need a gun for their home, otherwise they're in imminent danger, is just wrong.


As I said though, those things happened befor I started carrying a pistol. Befor then it was just hunting rifles and shotguns meant for hunting and target and pretty much no one outside of friends and family knew of them. But after you start carrying a gun, a reputation follows of "don't f**k around with those people, you might get shot." Not saying that to try to sound cocky or like some kind of badass, but rumors and stories spread like wild fire out here and being that 7/10 breakins are committed by people in your community, that reputation alone can help prevent some jackass neighbors kid from busting in your window one night. And if a mugger or thief is checking out people walking the street, how often do you think they will see the guy in jeans and a T with a pistol on his side and say "I'm gonna try my luck with him instead of waiting to snatch grannies purse. Not many...

And yeah, it is messed up for people to feel they need to have a weapon to feel safe, but the sad reality is in this day and age, depending on where you live, it is quite likely that you really DO need that protection. As an example, I remember seeing a report on the news one time that, in the Church Hill area that I spoke of earlier residents statistically had a 1 in 8 chance of being shot at and/or killed that year. ONE in EIGHT... thats more than enough for me to say hell yes to guns.

It's hard to comprehend if you don't live in an area like this or many others like this. But when you're here, and you sit and watch the local news and see multiple homicides pop up, and see video of armed robberies and have to say "shit, I just grabbed a coffee from that shop 3 hours ago" or "goddamn, I used to play ball on the court those 3 boys got shot" it's a bit disconcerting. Hell, about a month and a half ago, a lady 3 houses down from me was attacked with a knife by some jackass she paid to do garage work for her.

With an environment like that, I'd call someone crazy for not wanting to be armed.

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
CoolHandLuke

ID: 1582871
Level: 25
Posts: 2807
Score: 928
CoolHandLuke [1582871]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Feb 11, 2013 19:42:54
By Stain92 [1040302]
By CoolHandLuke [1582871]
By Stain92 [1040302]
By CoolHandLuke [1582871]
By idilio_vj [1520089]
i know no one cares, but ill just give my opinion.. the guy who started the thread said as principal argument that guns are neccesary for defend the nation from foreign attacks. but the truth is no one really has any intention to launch an invasion to the country, so.. why are so stubborn about gettin rid of their weapons?? i think deep inside they're just like children, remmber that time when u had your little pistol, and imagine your own adventures and become the great hero of the world? i think that sums it all.. while there's no invasion of the national soil, there is NO need that everyone has 2,3,4,5 or more weapons in their homes, at the reach of non mature individuals (age doesnt matter)


so if somebody broke into your home, and was threatening your family. What would you do? call the cops? you do realize the Average 911 response time is 10 minutes, slowest is 11 and fastest is 9.....you know how long it takes for him to beat/kill you and your family if he has a gun? Thats why it is still the most important right we have. Thats why grown men and women act like "children" when it comes to being disarmed. Sorry, if you dont understand how important it is to own a gun i pray for you and your family.


www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Farwell-Texas.html

If the crime rate in your town has stayed like that for the last two years, I'm very skeptical it's important that YOU own a gun.


well, in my situation i have to deal with coyotes and rattle snakes...so i still need a gun....glad you think you know about me tho.


Also, Clovis is only about a 10 minute drive from my home....which has many gangs around there, and if you look at your site it even shows that Clovis is pretty bad. But like i said, im glad you think you know my situation...just shows how ignorant you are. if your family ever gets attacked in your home and your whole family besides you gets killed because you decided all you needed was 911 i will just laugh and said told you so. for the only person you can blame is yourself.


Shooting Coyotes and Rattle snakes isn't home defense, it's pest control, you're preaching home safety, stick with it. Luckily for you, you don't live in Clovis, you live in Farwell. You'll have also read that crime rate accounts for visitors, and visiting workers.

Even taking in the fact that you live near a pretty bad place, you still have f**k all crime in Farwell, 2 of the 3 criteria that I feel would definitely warrant a shooting didn't happen from 2002 to 2011, and probably hadn't and haven't happened previously and after. The other one (Arson) only happened once and I'd only say it warranted shooting if it was a house.

As for living in Richmond, I can't say I have, but I have seen that map showing the amount of people living below the poverty line, I imagine it can be pretty sh*tty.

So, while you were living there, how many people did you have to shoot? I bet you were mugged weekly, curbed stomped every day?


i wasnt preaching a thing, i was giving you an example...but hey good thing you know the difference.

no, but in order to get things like food, cloths and other things people NEED i HAVE to go to Clovis unless i want to drive about 1-2 hours to Amarillo....but i guess that doesnt matter does it?

So you see a picture and think you actually know how it is in a place? Ignorance at its best....

i didnt kill anybody, because i was 20 when i moved to Texas so was never legal to carry a gun. But i have been jumped for being the wrong color, wearing the wrong colors, or just walking down the wrong block at the wrong time. I grew up having to look over my shoulder 24/7 365 days a year. im happy you never had to watch your back, and watch where you were walking. But not everybody is as lucky as you, and many people realize the cops are NOT the answer. Since they only show up AFTER the crime is committed, which does no good if your getting jumped, held up or shot at.


But i will stop arguing with a moron.

pride.png
dont ruin today by reliving yesterday's problems.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
-rob-

ID: 65426
Level: 82
Posts: 11575
Score: 4126
NuBz-rob- [65426]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Wed Feb 20, 2013 02:59:58
I haven't read back, but support for background checks and limits on magazine size seem to have decent support.

What are the reasons why the limit on magazine sizes is a bad idea?

Best I've seen so far is that they can be "convenient" when target shooting.

Do we actually have folks other than Wayne LaPierre who think they need a 30-round magazine to defend their home? And if so, what are you defending your home from? Who did you piss off?

BestEVER.gif4751_zpsc9715e02.png
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
_TheCrow_

ID: 686314
Level: 40
Posts: 4916
Score: 3137
_TheCrow_ [686314]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Wed Feb 20, 2013 03:29:25
By -rob- [65426]
I haven't read back, but support for background checks and limits on magazine size seem to have decent support.

What are the reasons why the limit on magazine sizes is a bad idea?

Best I've seen so far is that they can be "convenient" when target shooting.

Do we actually have folks other than Wayne LaPierre who think they need a 30-round magazine to defend their home? And if so, what are you defending your home from? Who did you piss off?


Besides being less convenient, it just seams flat out pointless and costly for gun owners who practice a lot. As been stated a bunch, it takes mere seconds to change out a mag so it's not like it's gonna save any lives to limit the sizes. So for people like me who like to go shooting often, it's ridiculous to have to reload 5 10 round clips (or have to buy 5 or 10 more which would be needlessly pricey) every few minutes instead of having 5 30 round clips ready to go JUST to pacify a knee jerk reaction to a tragedy that didn't even involve the weapon everyone is scared of.

And yes, sure it may not affect those who already have what they want to have, but what about our children and the next generation? I plan to teach my nephews the value of hunting, fishing and respecting guns. Yeah, he can use mine for now, but what about when he's grown and wants to have his own collection and take his kids? They'll have to suffer and be at a financial disadvantage because the hipster 'occupy' generation feared what they didn't understand?

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
-rob-

ID: 65426
Level: 82
Posts: 11575
Score: 4126
NuBz-rob- [65426]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Wed Feb 20, 2013 03:57:24
Does a 30-round mag cost less than 3 10-round mags?

My family reloads almost all of our ammunition. I can't say I've ever actually gone to the store to buy any. But then again my family only uses shotguns and bolt action rifles too, so I've never shot 30 rounds at a target all in one go.

BestEVER.gif4751_zpsc9715e02.png
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Gungrave
ID: 470221
Level: 58
Posts: 19097
Score: 13090
Gungrave [470221]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Wed Feb 20, 2013 04:03:25
By -rob- [65426]
Does a 30-round mag cost less than 3 10-round mags?

My family reloads almost all of our ammunition. I can't say I've ever actually gone to the store to buy any. But then again my family only uses shotguns and bolt action rifles too, so I've never shot 30 rounds at a target all in one go.


depends on what type of gun you're getting the mag for but generally larger clips like any "bulk item" in a store will be cheaper than the individual item in most cases.

axxsvl.png
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
-Cindy-
ID: 747490
Level: 48
Posts: 14205
Score: 8588
.-Cindy- [747490]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Feb 21, 2013 20:46:56
Legal and law abiding citizens should have no restrictions on the firearms/ammo they can own because of a few bad guys. I have my CPL (sometimes known as a CCW), I'm licensed, trained, state and federally clear to own, carry, sell and transport legal firearms of my choice.

If you don't like bad guys and crazies buying guns out of the trunks of cars on the street, try to enforce a law to stop them. Good luck.
:P

cindy.jpg

Someone call, text or email me when The Halibut is back.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Feb 21, 2013 20:56:54
By _TheCrow_ [686314]
By -rob- [65426]
I haven't read back, but support for background checks and limits on magazine size seem to have decent support.

What are the reasons why the limit on magazine sizes is a bad idea?

Best I've seen so far is that they can be "convenient" when target shooting.

Do we actually have folks other than Wayne LaPierre who think they need a 30-round magazine to defend their home? And if so, what are you defending your home from? Who did you piss off?


Besides being less convenient, it just seams flat out pointless and costly for gun owners who practice a lot. As been stated a bunch, it takes mere seconds to change out a mag so it's not like it's gonna save any lives to limit the sizes. So for people like me who like to go shooting often, it's ridiculous to have to reload 5 10 round clips (or have to buy 5 or 10 more which would be needlessly pricey) every few minutes instead of having 5 30 round clips ready to go JUST to pacify a knee jerk reaction to a tragedy that didn't even involve the weapon everyone is scared of.

And yes, sure it may not affect those who already have what they want to have, but what about our children and the next generation? I plan to teach my nephews the value of hunting, fishing and respecting guns. Yeah, he can use mine for now, but what about when he's grown and wants to have his own collection and take his kids? They'll have to suffer and be at a financial disadvantage because the hipster 'occupy' generation feared what they didn't understand?


So now the constitution protects the right for you to load your weapon conveniently at gun ranges and you are afraid for the younger generations ability to shoot a weapon because they might have to buy more clips?

Give me a break...


Alright, so only allow large clips to be used at gun ranges. Problem solved right?

**Waits for new excuse***

Last Edited: Thu Feb 21, 2013 20:59:29
DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
-Cindy-
ID: 747490
Level: 48
Posts: 14205
Score: 8588
.-Cindy- [747490]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Feb 21, 2013 21:05:44
Having to mess with the mechanics and reload is more than just in inconvenience at the range. Those seconds can cost you your life in a self defense situation.

cindy.jpg

Someone call, text or email me when The Halibut is back.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Rekker

ID: 1761
Level: 50
Posts: 3865
Score: 2294
LSRekker [1761]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Feb 21, 2013 21:54:25
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RablPaIREkk This makes more sense than how it is

027dbd1a-995b-e2c3-1761.png

Keep your sig within the limits ~TC Staff
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
_TheCrow_

ID: 686314
Level: 40
Posts: 4916
Score: 3137
_TheCrow_ [686314]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Feb 21, 2013 23:36:35
By TedThomas [887131]
By _TheCrow_ [686314]
By -rob- [65426]
I haven't read back, but support for background checks and limits on magazine size seem to have decent support.

What are the reasons why the limit on magazine sizes is a bad idea?

Best I've seen so far is that they can be "convenient" when target shooting.

Do we actually have folks other than Wayne LaPierre who think they need a 30-round magazine to defend their home? And if so, what are you defending your home from? Who did you piss off?


Besides being less convenient, it just seams flat out pointless and costly for gun owners who practice a lot. As been stated a bunch, it takes mere seconds to change out a mag so it's not like it's gonna save any lives to limit the sizes. So for people like me who like to go shooting often, it's ridiculous to have to reload 5 10 round clips (or have to buy 5 or 10 more which would be needlessly pricey) every few minutes instead of having 5 30 round clips ready to go JUST to pacify a knee jerk reaction to a tragedy that didn't even involve the weapon everyone is scared of.

And yes, sure it may not affect those who already have what they want to have, but what about our children and the next generation? I plan to teach my nephews the value of hunting, fishing and respecting guns. Yeah, he can use mine for now, but what about when he's grown and wants to have his own collection and take his kids? They'll have to suffer and be at a financial disadvantage because the hipster 'occupy' generation feared what they didn't understand?


So now the constitution protects the right for you to load your weapon conveniently at gun ranges and you are afraid for the younger generations ability to shoot a weapon because they might have to buy more clips?

Give me a break...


Alright, so only allow large clips to be used at gun ranges. Problem solved right?

**Waits for new excuse***


So what exactly are the reasons to warrant banning large capacity magazines? Just as I can simply and easily buy more magazines, so can the criminals and psychopaths. So what exactly does it accomplish? Seams rather pointless.

For someone that has complained about government waste and spending, it seams ridiculous that you of all people are such a fanboy of them wasting time and money deliberating over something you yourself don't think will pass and is not gonna help slow or stop crime.



Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Feb 22, 2013 06:21:53
Just as you said. It takes a couple seconds to change your clip. You know, exactly the kind of opportunity that is helpful when you are looking to take down someone who is shooting up a school.

You are the advocate for people being armed and taking down shooters. Would you not agree that a couple seconds would be useful for one of these concealed carry permit holders that you keep praising, to be able to actually shoot back at them?

Also as you pointed out like 2 posts ago, it is easier to get off more shots with bigger clips. Are are you really going to argue you can get off 30 shots in the same amount of time with 3 10 round clips instead of one 30 round clip?

It seems pointless to you because you are bent on ignoring any sort of argument that relates to gun regulation.


You know what I find ridiculous? People like you acting like you need to start a civil war to protect shit you dont even really need and could get by just fine without.

Last Edited: Fri Feb 22, 2013 06:23:26
DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
_TheCrow_

ID: 686314
Level: 40
Posts: 4916
Score: 3137
_TheCrow_ [686314]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Feb 22, 2013 07:09:42
By TedThomas [887131]
Just as you said. It takes a couple seconds to change your clip. You know, exactly the kind of opportunity that is helpful when you are looking to take down someone who is shooting up a school.

You are the advocate for people being armed and taking down shooters. Would you not agree that a couple seconds would be useful for one of these concealed carry permit holders that you keep praising, to be able to actually shoot back at them?

Also as you pointed out like 2 posts ago, it is easier to get off more shots with bigger clips. Are are you really going to argue you can get off 30 shots in the same amount of time with 3 10 round clips instead of one 30 round clip?


You know what I find ridiculous? People like you acting like you need to start a civil war to protect shit you dont even really need and could get by just fine without.


Considering most shooting sprees involve pistols that have less of a capacity than AR's, and no one has yet to put down one of these spree shooters, I fail to see how limiting AR mag's would make any difference whatsoever.

They'll have to change mags regardless. A conceal carrying citizen would have just as much time to shoot the gunman whether he's changing a 10 round clip or a 30 round clip, or in more common situations where pistols are used, a 14 round clip or 8 round clip. So again, your point seams pretty invalid unless you're comparing low count mags to the infinite ammo in movies.

Wether they have 2 30 round mags or 6 10 round mags, as long as no one else is armed they are still going to shoot 60 bullets. The combined 9-12 second difference isn't really going to make much of a difference when most victims involved hit the deck and/or try to hide behind something that the bullets will more than likely shoot through.

And when have I ever said anything about starting a goddamn civil war? Someone else made a comment about that a while back, and my comments suggested that more military and police would join the normal civilians than you think and that police and soldiers are 9/10 also pro gun and would support our right to be legally armed. No where is that saying that I'm advocating a civil war.

And "shit you dont even really need and could get by just fine without." is your opinion. Millions of people still hunt and most are not skilled enough for a bow. People still commit violent crimes against other people without a gun, but if they come at you with a knife and you have a gun the worst you have to worry about is a piss or blood stain on your carpet. But even if there was ANY slight truth to your comment, there are MANY things you could live without but would shit bricks if it were taken. Music, movies, internet, tobacco, alcohol,etc. All things we could live without and don't need yet shit would hit the fan if the government stepped in and put a stop to or a strong limit to any of those things. We don't need alcohol, but what happen when the government stopped that? And do you not think the same thing could happen again? So save the "don't really need it" argument cause thats just ridiculous.

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Feb 22, 2013 07:18:44
You just said " it's ridiculous to have to reload 5 10 round clips (or have to buy 5 or 10 more which would be needlessly pricey) every few minutes instead of having 5 30 round clips ready".

If its not easier to have larger clips than using smaller ones, why did you just say it is when it applies to you. (Psst, banning clips to 7 rounds would also apply to handguns genius.)





Seriously, these arguments sound like a 8 year old trying to convince his mom why he needs the ultra-deluxe set of legos.


Jesus Christ you are thick. "shit you dont even really need and could get by just fine without" was referring to assault rifles and large capacity magazines, not all guns you tardo.

NOBODY IS TRYING TO TAKE ALL GUNS AWAY NOR IS THAT EVEN FEASIBLE FOR THE 10TH TIME STUPID ASS.

Last Edited: Fri Feb 22, 2013 07:20:13
DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
_TheCrow_

ID: 686314
Level: 40
Posts: 4916
Score: 3137
_TheCrow_ [686314]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Feb 22, 2013 07:49:39
I never said it wasn't easier in my reply, I said it wouldn't change anything. These shooters already have to change clips and it's not stopping them. There is a difference between the slight inconvenience of someone planning on shooting a bunch of people and ending their life when their done and the inconvenience of having to do it all over and over again every time they shoot. With murder on your mind you don't give a shit about convenience.

Put down the J and work on your reading comprehension skills.

And typical punk ass Ted, pick and choose small points and ignore valid statements then rage the "Stupid stupid stupid" crap like some kind of 10yo on Xbox. I guess I should respond with the typical "You wouldn't say that shit to my face! Where you live bitch?" crap?

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
CoolHandLuke

ID: 1582871
Level: 25
Posts: 2807
Score: 928
CoolHandLuke [1582871]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:46:37
lol, changing mags in a school shooting doesnt give a person with a CCL time to shoot back you f**king retard. I guess i should fill you in on the fact even with a CCL, YOU CANT CARRY A GUN ON SCHOOL GROUND....and yet ted wants to call people stupid....do your research before you debate a topic that your are ignorant about. When you do, make sure its unbiased and pure facts. (and also make sure you savy the words you read, and if you come across a word like infringed check the dictionary and just go with what the dictionary says not your crooked ignorant supreme court people.)

pride.png
dont ruin today by reliving yesterday's problems.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
-El-

ID: 463504
Level: 76
Posts: 2191
Score: 1160
eV-El- [463504]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Feb 25, 2013 18:39:54
Can't we all just get along?

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Feb 25, 2013 20:04:20
By _TheCrow_ [686314]
I never said it wasn't easier in my reply, I said it wouldn't change anything. These shooters already have to change clips and it's not stopping them. There is a difference between the slight inconvenience of someone planning on shooting a bunch of people and ending their life when their done and the inconvenience of having to do it all over and over again every time they shoot. With murder on your mind you don't give a shit about convenience.

Put down the J and work on your reading comprehension skills.

And typical punk ass Ted, pick and choose small points and ignore valid statements then rage the "Stupid stupid stupid" crap like some kind of 10yo on Xbox. I guess I should respond with the typical "You wouldn't say that shit to my face! Where you live bitch?" crap?


They dont have to "care" about convenience, the simple fact of the matter is that it is more convenient because you can get off more shots in a shorter amount of time with larger clips. You said it yourself. The seconds in between changing clips that you say doesnt matter is seconds that someone could use to get away or take out the gunman. I did not say that banning larger clips is going to stop people from going on shooting sprees in the first place, nor is anyone else. The magazine size thing is about limiting the damage that someone can cause if they go on a shooting spree and the fact that you want to be able to shoot more bullets at a shooting range more conveniently is not a valid argument as to why it shouldnt be done.


I know if I were in that situation I would much rather the guy have to change clips 4 times than be able to shoot 30 rounds without stopping. Thats 4 more opportunities that I would have to get away from the gunfire than I would if he had 30 round magazines. Not to mention its much harder to run around a public place and quickly access 13 7-round magazines than it is 3 30-round magazines.

The real point here is showing the ridiculous excuses you want to make against even mild gun regulation (that is completely constitutional btw). "Future generations will be handicapped in their ability to learn how to shoot a gun if I cant have large capacity magazines because they either have to reload their magazine more often or buy more magazines" (paraphrasing). Like I said, give me a break...



And Luke, I never mentioned schools and many schools have armed security anyways but thanks for playing.

Last Edited: Mon Feb 25, 2013 20:30:58
DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
-Cindy-
ID: 747490
Level: 48
Posts: 14205
Score: 8588
.-Cindy- [747490]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Feb 25, 2013 20:39:00
Most of the people posting here are all passion no knowledge. If you don't own and operate firearms, what are you doing pretending to be experts? Your firearms terminology is awful. Just stop with the modern liberal logic, it's offensive to old school libs.

cindy.jpg

Someone call, text or email me when The Halibut is back.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Feb 25, 2013 20:43:59
I have operated firearms, I just dont own one because I dont feel the need to spend hundreds of dollars on something I dont need.

I really dont care that you dont like that I said clips instead of magazines, why dont you actually try addressing the points I made instead of playing semantics games if you want to be part of the conversation.

DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
-Cindy-
ID: 747490
Level: 48
Posts: 14205
Score: 8588
.-Cindy- [747490]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Feb 25, 2013 20:46:20
Way to personalize my post Ted. lol

cindy.jpg

Someone call, text or email me when The Halibut is back.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Feb 25, 2013 20:47:46
Well seeing as its pretty much just me vs everyone else there isnt anyone else you could be talking to really.

Last Edited: Mon Feb 25, 2013 20:48:26
DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
-Cindy-
ID: 747490
Level: 48
Posts: 14205
Score: 8588
.-Cindy- [747490]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Feb 25, 2013 21:01:58
As a woman I completely appreciate guns, they are the great equalizer. In the US, 1 in 3 women are either raped or violently attacked in their lives. We are targets because we truly are defenseless (sorry feminists, it's true). It's a shame humans cannot evolve exponentially like technology, we've simply adapted and accepted the fact that we need to be protected. Why? Because we have a phoney government, too many officers serving but not protecting. Greed, war, poverty, inequality, shitty health care, and irresponsible adults raising little people. If you want to end gun violence, all of the above issues need to be addressed. We don't live in The Venus Project, a perfect little utopia.

Further limiting the rights of legal and law abiding citizens is non-productive. It's stupid.

cindy.jpg

Someone call, text or email me when The Halibut is back.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Feb 25, 2013 21:11:23
Having those problems + being inundated with guns with little restrictions doesnt help.


The real winner here is gun manufacturers. Every paranoid cry from the right that their guns are being taken away the more their profits go up when people freak out and go buy shit they dont even need in the fear that they might not be able to buy it in the future. Its the best marketing program money can buy.

DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
-Cindy-
ID: 747490
Level: 48
Posts: 14205
Score: 8588
.-Cindy- [747490]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Feb 25, 2013 21:18:50
Ted, there are 20,000+ guns laws already, you think those are "little restrictions"?

You blame the right, that's fine. But every time the left/libs cry for more gun laws, people impulsively buy more guns. These are not gun nuts (we already have guns), they are people who think that they are going to miss out on ever being able to own a firearm if legislation is passed. These impulsive purchases end up being stored insecurely or sold to criminals on the street.

You know who the best gun salesman is? Obama. Not because of what he has said on topic, but what he fails to say. He's doing nothing to assure us that he respects the 2nd Amendment. He's no better than the extreme right and their paranoia.

Last Edited: Mon Feb 25, 2013 21:20:23
cindy.jpg

Someone call, text or email me when The Halibut is back.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Cyrax

ID: 249578
Level: 35
Posts: 4776
Score: 2750
Cyrax [249578]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Feb 25, 2013 21:25:33
What are your thoughts on 30 round magazines then? 100 round drum mags? Do you think owning high capacity mags are crucial to your survival?

I'm not trying to piss on anyone's parade here, just want to know the benefits apart from peppering targets down-range.

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
-Cindy-
ID: 747490
Level: 48
Posts: 14205
Score: 8588
.-Cindy- [747490]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Feb 25, 2013 21:30:54
My thoughts? I support personal ownership of any and all firearms, ammo etc that an individual chooses to obtain. As long as they are legal, and law abiding citizens (as if that matters when criminals don't care about laws).

I would argue that HCM's are essential for survival when up against several "bad guys".

cindy.jpg

Someone call, text or email me when The Halibut is back.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
BuckWyld

ID: 1009930
Level: 70
Posts: 6003
Score: 3644
BuckWyld [1009930]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Mon Feb 25, 2013 21:37:15
By TedThomas [887131]
Well seeing as its pretty much just me vs everyone else there isnt anyone else you could be talking to really.


Oh please, you'd find a reason to argue even if someone did agree with ya.

Forum Main>>Non Related>>Politics & Law>> Gun Control.
First  << 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19 >>  Last