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 think the Op's question is flawed. I could care less how many guns someone owns, and I don't think the semi automatic weapons themselves are the problem--it's the capacity of the magazine. If you have a large capacity magazine on a semi automatic weapon you might as well have a machine gun--automatic weapons are tightly regulated in this country. It's not legal to even hunt in Nebraska with anything more than six rounds. Maybe we need to tightly regulate the magazines, and require manufacturers to modify their designs so that people can't easily change out components in their guns themselves without having to actually machine the parts themselves. This is a complicated problem that's going to have to be approached from lots of different directions, and it's going to take someone smarter than me to figure it out, but I think we need to have a serious conversation in this country about what WILL make a difference. The last assault weapon ban didn't work because an elephant could walk through the loopholes, and the manufacturers just redesigned around the restrictions--the weapons used in most of the recent mass murders were all legal under the old ban. Hopefully this time we'll actually address the problem.
Remember, it is not the machine gun that pulls its own trigger.
After our own revolution for freedom, it was a right for the people to own the same weapons as the King to defend themselves from a future King.
I guess its just over your head. Your free to go to the pablem post where you may be at a level you can understand. LOL
Apparently my tireless efforts in canvasing neighborhoods in support of same sex marriage, universal single payer healthcare and social safety nets is not sufficient for the lowest rungs on the left leaning ladder to comprehend my support for this country overall.
Perhaps if I could bring my sister who is married and lives with her wife in MA into this discussion it might assist you in understanding that social progressives can and do own firearms.
My sister and her wife are firearm instructors in their spare time teaching women how to defend themselves against primarily angry male predators that are bent on rape, robbery and assault.
But of course the hell with women right? Police of course are so numerous in number that they are literally waiting to escort women, children and the elderly around on their daily treks.
As a National Organization of Women (WOW) member I fully support this organizations stance on self protection for women.
When you can intelligently discuss this issue on a level that represents not only my knowledge on firearms but also discuss your opposition that would match my level of educational attainment then we will have meaningful discourse, otherwise here's a quarter, run along and tell your mother I need to speak with her.
Last edited by julian17033; 12-21-2012 at 07:33 AM..
Remember, it is not the machine gun that pulls its own trigger.
After our own revolution for freedom, it was a right for the people to own the same weapons as the King to defend themselves from a future King.
By that logic, you should be able to buy tanks, missiles, etc. and form your own private army on a compound somewhere that has weapons equal to the US Army.
By that logic, you should be able to buy tanks, missiles, etc. and form your own private army on a compound somewhere that has weapons equal to the US Army.
Of course. Why should the US gov have a monopoly on firepower over her citizens? Is the US gov somehow special?
And now we get to the heart of it, once again. It isn't that you don't think that common sense regs would save lives--it's that you have Rambo fantasies of a shoot out with federal agents. Got it.
And now we get to the heart of it, once again. It isn't that you don't think that common sense regs would save lives--it's that you have Rambo fantasies of a shoot out with federal agents. Got it.
No it isn't that. It's that I'm not a natural slave whose going to willingly let some entity have a monopoloy of power of me. You on the other hand are a natural slave.
As I told the other idiot, fair ethical question but this is my post and you are free to ask it in your post. But it still stands you just can't answer can you? LOL every dodge makes my point. You just can't do it. I have never seen so much squirming. LMAO
Would you give up semi autos if it saved one kids life?
The other poster asked you a fair and ethical question and then you call him/her an idiot?
People aren't answering your question because they are having a hard time picturing a scenario where you could save one child's life by giving up your gun. Maybe if you used the superior intellect that you apparently feel that you possess, you could outline one.
Nope, and I also would not stand out in the street with all my neighbors and blow towards the sun hoping to cool it down when it gets too hot in the summer.
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.
