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.
I used to consider myself an independent and vote for the person and what they stood for. You would have to put a gun to my head today (pardon the pun based on the thread) to make me vote for any Democrat above the office of small town mayor as the party is run by absolute nuts now.
That said, I AGREE with one thing the Democrats are pushing, and that's a limit being placed on the number of rounds in a clip or magazine. When used for hunting or home defense, you're never going to need more than 10 rounds and maybe it could be even lessened down to 6 rounds. Even in competitive shooting, they never shoot more than 6 rounds at a time. There's no need to ban clips or magazines, just ban those holding too many (whatever is chosen as too many) rounds. Banning of guns like the AR-15 is just a bunch of talk by people that really don't know anything about guns. As if they are more dangerous than much larger guns that they never talk about like the 30-30's, 308's, & 30-06's which also are available as semi-automatics.
There you have it. The only thing that TODAY'S Democratic "leaders" have in all their talking points that makes any sense at all.
So you're okay with people getting shot as long as it isn't more than 6 or so?
......That said, I AGREE with one thing the Democrats are pushing, and that's a limit being placed on the number of rounds in a clip or magazine. When used for hunting or home defense, you're never going to need more than 10 rounds and maybe it could be even lessened down to 6 rounds. Even in competitive shooting, they never shoot more than 6 rounds at a time. There's no need to ban clips or magazines, just ban those holding too many (whatever is chosen as too many) rounds...... .
What's too many? My small arms instructor has it ingrained to me to always carry 3 magazines. Always. Now, that is being upgraded to 4 magazines for, if, in sustained firefight with multiple opposing force, one should not finish it empty but have one more to reload on.
So, look at it this from A and B. A: Bob and a few of his friends are coming at you with base ball bats to do violence against you. How are you going to stop them. B: How many rounds will it take to convince them that this is really a bad idea and for them to be far, far away.......as oppose to, maybe we can get behind her?
Who are you to say how many rounds one needs in defence?
What's too many? My small arms instructor has it ingrained to me to always carry 3 magazines. Always. Now, that is being upgraded to 4 magazines for, if, in sustained firefight with multiple opposing force, one should not finish it empty but have one more to reload on.
So, look at it this from A and B. A: Bob and a few of his friends are coming at you with base ball bats to do violence against you. How are you going to stop them. B: How many rounds will it take to convince them that this is really a bad idea and for them to be far, far away.......as oppose to, maybe we can get behind her?
Who are you to say how many rounds one needs in defence?
Here's why this statement is ignorant (not you Tamara but the person you were replying to).
Trained police officers typically have about a 20-30% hit rate in a shooting. So out of a 6 bullet magazine maybe 1 or 2 would be hits. It often times takes multiple hits to take down and neutralize a determined attacker especially if high on drugs. And often times criminals attack in groups, you may be up against multiple attackers (possibly armed with illegal high capacity mags) and you will have your 6 round mag and be dead but don't worry at least you were following the law and didn't make anti gunners nervous.
I used to consider myself an independent and vote for the person and what they stood for. You would have to put a gun to my head today (pardon the pun based on the thread) to make me vote for any Democrat above the office of small town mayor as the party is run by absolute nuts now.
That said, I AGREE with one thing the Democrats are pushing, and that's a limit being placed on the number of rounds in a clip or magazine. When used for hunting or home defense, you're never going to need more than 10 rounds and maybe it could be even lessened down to 6 rounds. Even in competitive shooting, they never shoot more than 6 rounds at a time. There's no need to ban clips or magazines, just ban those holding too many (whatever is chosen as too many) rounds. Banning of guns like the AR-15 is just a bunch of talk by people that really don't know anything about guns. As if they are more dangerous than much larger guns that they never talk about like the 30-30's, 308's, & 30-06's which also are available as semi-automatics.
There you have it. The only thing that TODAY'S Democratic "leaders" have in all their talking points that makes any sense at all.
So there's the good guy with an AR-15 stopping the Sutherland Texas mass-shooter. You know that shooting that happened just a bit before Parkland that the media completely ignored and in which more people were killed? So good guy with an AR-15 there. And then after people like Joe Biden toss just settling for a shotgun or a revolver, you get a mass shooting or two done with revolvers and shotguns. And since legal precedent wouldn't allow governments to specifically ban "that one gun made by ArmaLite" then somebody's got to figure out how to ban the AR-15 by banning it by banning the features of the gun itself ... without banning every handgun, revolver and many other hunting rifles.
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.