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.
Im not the one claiming I need a semi auto to be able to kill game. I can drop them dead with a bolt action or lever action all day long, and have never needed a semi auto in my entire life. The speed in which I might need to get off a second shot is irrelevant .
But you cannot shoot one as fast as a semi no matter what you wish to claim. Simple physics dictates that.
Everyone in this group uses a semi-auto. When you've got 12-20 geese committed to your decoys those 3 shots are invaluable.
So the inevitable is happening. The yelling for bans , restrictions, whatever has sallied forth. The inevitable reaction will be a massive spike upward of gun sales.
Yes, let's focus on mental illness, and how we can keep guns away from people suffering from it.
we need to speak up when we find people with mental issues. we need to get them into court and have them adjudicated. if found to be mentally defective, then that judgement can be put into their record, even if it is only a civil adjudication, that would prevent them from legally purchasing a firearm.
but once again we must avoid violating their civil rights. so we have a catch 22 situation here. this is where we must do things right, cross all the Ts and dot all the Is.
So the inevitable is happening. The yelling for bans , restrictions, whatever has sallied forth. The inevitable reaction will be a massive spike upward of gun sales.
Yep
I just can't believe people think banning a type of firearm will stop mass shootings. Ridiculous lack of logic.
Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
I agree. It seems that many are willing to have gun owners give up their rights, but not the mentally ill. Hypocritical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GearHeadDave
Oh right. We've all heard these slippery slope arguments before. Didn't buy them then, don't buy them now. When we passed the laws last century to ban automatic weapons, did that precipitate "revisiting a person's right to be presumed innocent"? We are a nation of laws. You can characterize that as being a "nanny state" if you wish, but I want to live in a country where we have common sense laws to protect all of us. I don't want people free to drive 100 miles per hour on the Interstate for example, that's why we have speed limits. Do you think that is a "nanny state" restriction?
Most people WANT common sense restrictions on what we can and cannot do. Extending the gun laws to semi-autos and other gun technologies that permit the rapid slaughter of human beings for most people is a no-brainer.
I'm not arguing slippery slope. I telling you that if you want rights taken away, put the burden on everyone equally. I don't agree with that, I think it's stupid, but so is the idea that no AR's will mean no school shootings.
I agree. It seems that many are willing to have gun owners give up their rights, but not the mentally ill. Hypocritical.
I'm not arguing slippery slope. I telling you that if you want rights taken away, put the burden on everyone equally. I don't agree with that, I think it's stupid, but so is the idea that no AR's will mean no school shootings.
We already know their game plan...if we just ban the AR. Then the next shooting, if we just ban semi-autos. Another shooting, if we just ban all hi cap mags....shooting... if we just ban pump guns....another
People only "need" single shot firearms. Yet another shooting. Well, we tried, we need to ban all firearms. Then like in China, a mass stabbing. Well, we'll need to ban all knives over 3 inches. And so on and so on while people still die.
Except, we aren't an island, we aren't all the same race. We have open borders and we are all different. This crystal ball approach of banning everything just isn't going to work here.
I meant, not using game and birds for food, but shooting them to bits and pieces for I guess, fun, practice for what? Why would you use an assault rifle to hunt?
I have lived in Alaska, and understand hunting for food. Using an assault rifle on birds and animals is just sick. IMO. Of course if you are somewhere and have a wild boar or other crazy animal, come at you that may be a different story.
Must be how some of the kids felt, when that nutcase was hunting them down, with his AR-15.
A typical "Ready, fire, aim" attitude. Shouldn't it be preceded by finding out which things work and which don't, before we start implementing them? With literally decades of assaults and murders, and as many decades of trying one "gun control" scheme after another, we've got a lot of data on which schemes have delivered the result advertised, and which didn't.
Hint: Almost none of them did. In fact, they often made things worse.
And now, as usual, whiner after whiner simply demands we do the same things that have failed, over and over as a proposed "solution". One definition of "insanity" is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. Why do we keep listening to the people who clearly exhibit this characteristic?
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.
