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.
Cartridges was a mistake on my part.(i will correct that) So what is the big deal about what i called them Any guy on here that is nto shooting fully understands what i was saying. Continually attacking me over this shows that your defense are weak and you feel the need to assassinate my character to feel you have out done me or whatever.
On clips v magazines... most people call them clips because it's faster and easier to do so and the nuances as to the differences are slight and not really important to the average person. I think many people use the generic term "clip" when referencing detachable magazines... probably because clips are the thing that started it all... the father, if you will, of magazines... so kind of like how people call all facial tissues "kleenex," the first thing used to do something is what everyone will call it.
Because you try to ban something that you have no clue about. Lets ban di-hydrogen oxide. No idea what that is but it surely sounds scary and according to the poll, most American want to ban it.
Even focusing on the mental/emotional state of the shooter doesn't help much... at least, to the extent we are able to do it today.
Lots of mental/emotional defectives circulate freely among us today. Most of them don't gun down batches of children and adults in schools, theaters etc. Only a few do.
The plain fact is that we don't have the knowledge to forecast who will do it. Some of the shooters have acquaintences who say, "he seemed like a nice guy, no real problems, it's a huge surprise he would do this". Other shooters' acquaintences say, "Yes, he was strange, a loner, a sort of weird guy, I felt uncomfortable around him."
Well, guess what. Among people who DON'T shoot large numbers of people (such as you and me, and most of the people you will meet at work and at the grocery store today), their acquaintences' comments will cover about the same spectrum.
In nearly all cases of people who actually become mass murderers, THERE IS NO WAY TO FORECAST IN ADVANCE that this particular guy will do it. Some of them seem odd, but some people who will never murder anyone, seem odd too.
And there's nothing new about this. Back in George Washington's day, there were pretty much the same collection of personality types, all running around loose. And the vast majority (even including the odd ones), never killed or injured anyone, or even tried. And occasionally a very rare one, did. Just like today.
So the people of Washington's time, knew that there was a very rare person who would grab a gun or knife or three, and start killing everyone he could, and some of those would succeed. And yet they wrote a 2nd amendment saying that government could have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in deciding who could keep and bear arms, and who couldn't. Everyone was allowed to if he wanted. Period.
And that was because the people of Washington's time, who studied every society and government in history, what those govts did, what the results were, ad infinitum... decided that even with the very rare homicidal whacko running around, society was better off overall if EVERYONE was allowed to carry weapons if they wanted, than if government had the power to decide which ones couldn't.
The people of that day decided that (a) It was impossible to protect against every (rare) homicidal maniac, sooner or later people WOULD die; and (b) Masses of ordinary law-abiding citizens able to carry their own weapons would do a better job defending against them (however imperfectly) than government would.
You can agree or disagree with their conclusion. But the fact remains that that's what they concluded... and they didn't arrive at that decision lightly. And the conclusion was so clear to them... and to nearly every member of their society... that they made it the Fundamental Law of the Land. And EVERY state agreed strongly enough to ratify it.
Today, the hubris that makes some of us think that we know better than the entire population of George Washington's time, or that somehow people have changed enough that govt can now do it better than an armed and capable populace, covers up the abject ignorance of most of the people making such a claim.
For years now, decades, several generations, government has been doing what the 2nd amendment says it's forbidden to do: Deciding who will be disarmed and who won't. And they've been implenting their decisions by passing laws... which, of course, the criminals freely ignore while only the law-abiding obediently disarm themselves. And the list of innocent people gunned down by those criminals - both in horrifying mass murders like Sandy Hook, Aurora, and Virginia Tech; and in day-to-day murders of hundreds in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles etc. - grows by leaps and bounds, revealing to all that George Washington was at least right about government's inability to prevent such carnage.
And as government continues to disarm the law-abiding, and let the criminals prey on us in ways that govt repeatedly proves unable to stop, we need to decide if we are really smarter than Washington, Madison, Jefferson and the rest of the scholars of that day.
While we're still around to make the decision.
These mass murderers share quite a few characteristics.
So by your 'logic' cops do not need guns either, much less a 30 round magazine. Is that your conclusion?
Police need 20-30 round magazines in certain extremely rare situations. The question is why does a homeowner need that capacity for home defense, why does a middle age housewife in Connecticut need an AR-15 with 30 round magazines.
Police need 20-30 round magazines in certain extremely rare situations. The question is why does a homeowner need that capacity for home defense, why does a middle age housewife in Connecticut need an AR-15 with 30 round magazines.
It's been answered. It's irrelevant. It has nothing to do with anything.
As I wrote long ago there is that part about militia in the 2nd amendment. Of course, like everything else some stretch it all out of shape in order to fill or suit their own criteria on this issue.
See Title 10, United States Code: Unorganized Militia. It is well explained there. Note that the Unorganized Militia is NOT the National Guard! Also note exactly who are the members of the Unorganized Militia. Do YOU meet the criteria given in the law? If so, are YOU prepared to be called up?
Read it, think about it, then get back to us!
Because you try to ban something that you have no clue about. Lets ban di-hydrogen oxide. No idea what that is but it surely sounds scary and according to the poll, most American want to ban it.
Yes, definitely, di-hydrogen monoxide is dangerous stuff! just as dangerous as guns, deadly, and much more common! Don't believe it? Go to Material Safety Data Sheet for Dihydrogen Monoxide and see for yourself!
Police need 20-30 round magazines in certain extremely rare situations. The question is why does a homeowner need that capacity for home defense, why does a middle age housewife in Connecticut need an AR-15 with 30 round magazines.
Again, law abiding citizens have no backup and must often face multiple bad guys alone.
Yes, definitely, di-hydrogen monoxide is dangerous stuff! just as dangerous as guns, deadly, and much more common! Don't believe it? Go to Material Safety Data Sheet for Dihydrogen Monoxide and see for yourself!
The dangers of dihydrogen monoxide include:
Murders hundred thousands of people every year;
Also called "hydroxyl acid", the substance is the major component of acid rain;
Contributes to the greenhouse effect;
Contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape;
Accelerates corrosion and breakdown of electrical equipment;
Excessive ingestion may cause various unpleasant effects;
Prolonged contact with its solid form results in severe tissue damage;
Inhalation, even in small quantities, may cause death;
Its gaseous form may cause severe burns;
It has been found in the tumors of terminal cancer patients;
Withdrawal by those addicted to the substance causes certain death within 168 hours;
Despite the danger, DHMO is often used:
Used in many forms of cruel animal research;
The US Navy has a secret distribution network for DHMO;
Lakes and rivers all over the world are contaminated with DHMO;
In the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical;
As an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products;
Known to be a component of a number of cancer-causing agents
Nevertheless, governments and corporations continue using it widely, heedless of its grave dangers.
Should we ban it from the universe?
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.
