Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When the CT shooting happened, I imposed a gag order on myself (not the fun kind) out of respect. I didn't want to turn the tragedy into exactly what it's been turned into: fodder in a political fight. I felt it was more appropriate to allow the families to grieve, bury their dead and TRY to find a way to move on with their lives. I chose not to engage in the gun debate that would undoubtedly occur. I am going to lift the gag order for a single post and then reinstate it. Respond to my comments or don't, I won't engage you.
Here are my thoughts on the issue:
1. Very little attention is being paid to the fact that, in the majority of shooting sprees like what happened in Newtown, no legislation would have prevented the violence. Why? Because the shooters are not legally allowed to own guns in the first place. Make all of the laws you want, criminals won't follow them. Ban anything you want, criminals will still get it and use it-ask a crackhead.
2. If legislation was the answer, then President Obama, Senator Reid and Congresswoman Pelosi are responsible for Newtown. Stick with me on this one before you explode out of your ears or whatever. Democrats could have (and did) passed whatever they wanted from 2008 to 2010 uncontested. They didn't touch guns. They didn't even reinstate the "assault rifle" ban. Why wait until they have a bloody, gruesome, rally point-like 20 dead children-to hide behind to "have the conversation" when they could have prevented the tragedy with legislation five years ago? Maybe because legislation IS NOT THE ANSWER!
3. Disarming responsible, legal gun owners only makes it easier for psychopaths who steal guns to cause harm. Had there been ONE concealed carry in that movie theater in Colorado, the narrative would have been a lot different-I guarantee it. The "Joker" would have got off a few shots before he was taken down.
4. Banning high capacity magazines won't fix anything. Do you have any idea how many 10-round magazines can be carried in a pair of cargo pants?
5. We invent rights every day. I've lost track of them all. This one is in the Constitution. There is no amendment ridding us of it. So keep your "right" to paid holidays (arguably my favorite) and I will keep my bill of rights. What will you use to defend yours?
and even after are sequence of posts they still have no clue, and don't realize all 3 guns are the exact same gun from the same manufacturer, and operate exactly the same.
Which is exactly why I asked what tragic event the other guy was talking about.
The day of the shooting they reported an AR being left in the car...then all they could talk about was how everyone had been shot with the AR...then they came out a week or two ago and said the AR had been left in the car (evidently it was left in the car with a shotgun because the only video of the police taking a firearm out of the car doesn't show an AR at all...but it does show a scattergun).
What is sad is that the wackos will fabricate a story like this and use it to "ban" one of the least used types of weapons used to murder people.
Last edited by cape_fisherman; 01-18-2013 at 08:44 PM..
Majority of Americans support Restrictions on Assault Rifles. Why would the majority stand up to the government when they agree with it?
I am open to hear opinions and outside information... but I am yet to hear anyone tell me one good reason why Americans need Assault Rifles. If you have one, I would be glad to entertain it.
Ask the 6 million jews that died in the holocost if they would have liked to had asault rifles when the Germans were hearding them into cattle cars to be sent to death camps....
The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sport shooting, it has everything to do with protecting our rights as a free people....
The only thing that protects the First amendment is the Second that is why they were put into the Bill of Rights in that order....
and even after are sequence of posts they still have no clue, and don't realize all 3 guns are the exact same gun from the same manufacturer, and operate exactly the same.
Is it possible to fire thirty rounds from the top one without reloading? I guess the statement that they operate exactly the same is not exactly true. I know many people assume that anyone that thinks some limitations on firearms would be acceptable knows nothing about the arguments they make. You know what they say about assuming right? I personally don't have a problem with "assault rifles" or whatever anyone wants to call them, but I don't understand why everyone is OK with it being illegal to have more than three rounds in your shotgun when you hunt waterfowl but it is totally unacceptable to limit the capacity of magazines for any other weapon.
Is it possible to fire thirty rounds from the top one without reloading? I guess the statement that they operate exactly the same is not exactly true. I know many people assume that anyone that thinks some limitations on firearms would be acceptable knows nothing about the arguments they make. You know what they say about assuming right? I personally don't have a problem with "assault rifles" or whatever anyone wants to call them, but I don't understand why everyone is OK with it being illegal to have more than three rounds in your shotgun when you hunt waterfowl but it is totally unacceptable to limit the capacity of magazines for any other weapon.
You are uninformed on a couple of things. No disrespect to you in the least, but I would like to educate you and anyone else who may be confused.
The gun on top that you refer to is a Ruger 10/22. It has a detachable magazine and can handle up to 30 rounds. The two guns below it are the exact same Ruger 10/22...only they have different stocks. All three rifles are identical mechanically. They are all .22 caliber rimfire. Two just "look" more menacing than the other simply because they have a different facade.
As for limiting a shotgun to three rounds when hunting for waterfowl you don't know why that is. Back years ago it was very easy to kill an entire flock of ducks with only one or two shots from a very large shotgun (4 & 6 gauge firearms). When modern sportsmen started using smaller shotguns the number of rounds were limited in order to preserve the resource. With this in mind, your argument about limiting magazine capacity does not hold water.
How many gun related murders, that was not drug or gang related, were directly attributed to a 30 round capacity magazine? A normal person can perform a magazine exchange including chambering the round in ~3-4 secs.
Those who wish gun control should need to state what problem they are trying to solve, then prove how any regulation they suggest will solve that problem without infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms. I have yet to have anyone be able to explain to me how restricting 'assault rifle' configuration and magazine capacity will in any way effectively reduce the amount of gun deaths in this country as assault rifles account for the smallest percentage of deaths nation wide. And, rifle magazine capacity has had no bearing in any of the murders including the mass shootings.
Is it possible to fire thirty rounds from the top one without reloading? I guess the statement that they operate exactly the same is not exactly true. I know many people assume that anyone that thinks some limitations on firearms would be acceptable knows nothing about the arguments they make. You know what they say about assuming right? I personally don't have a problem with "assault rifles" or whatever anyone wants to call them, but I don't understand why everyone is OK with it being illegal to have more than three rounds in your shotgun when you hunt waterfowl but it is totally unacceptable to limit the capacity of magazines for any other weapon.
actually all 3 of those problaby don't have 30 rounds.
My guess is the
-first one can fire 10(which is now illegal in NY btw)
-Second one holds about 25
-3rd is most likely a dummy 10 round magaize with a
All 3 guns are full able to hold a 100 rnd magazine.
And scary of all! OMG the .22LR kills more people each year then any other bullet.
-first one can fire 10(which is now illegal in NY btw)
Speaking of New York....and knee jerk reactions.
The brilliant minds there quickly made it a law that no gun can hold more than 7 rounds. I think they are giving their residents time to sell their high capacity magazines. For guns that have the capacity for more than 7 rounds (most semi-auto handguns) they are saying that you can not put more than 7 rounds in them...even if they have the capacity for 10, 14, 16 rounds, etc.
Now for the "brilliant" part. They were in such a hurry they did not exempt their own law enforcement from this outstanding new law. It is actually against the law for LEOs in New York to have more than 7 rounds in their service weapons. The idiot law makers now have to go back and amend their new law...which they will do and vote on next week.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
