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.
people wanting to limit the behavior of criminals by penalizing the law abiding.
how insane can anyone really get? if you seek to do that, you need to check yoruself into a mental ward.
Here's another insanity: view every lawful gun owner as criminal. We are talking about people who probably have never passed any sort of background judging those who have passed multiple background checks.
Here's another insanity: view every lawful gun owner as criminal. We are talking about people who probably have never passed any sort of background judging those who have passed multiple background checks.
people wanting to limit the behavior of criminals by penalizing the law abiding.
how insane can anyone really get? if you seek to do that, you need to check yoruself into a mental ward.
How do you know in advance if someone is law abiding or not, can you create a law that only impacts criminals? Just about everyone is law abiding until they commit a crime, what is the magic formula that takes guns out of the hands of criminals without restricting law abiding citizens.
How do you know in advance if someone is law abiding or not, can you create a law that only impacts criminals? Just about everyone is law abiding until they commit a crime, what is the magic formula that takes guns out of the hands of criminals without restricting law abiding citizens.
make only 1 gunlaw then just like this.
use of a firearm in any crime is illegal and holds a penalty that will add 10 years onto your sentence.
anyone convicted of a felony shall not be allowed to carry, use, own or have in their possession any type of firearm.
now it covers all criminals and all future criminal acts.
use of a firearm in any crime is illegal and holds a penalty that will add 10 years onto your sentence.
anyone convicted of a felony shall not be allowed to carry, use, own or have in their possession any type of firearm.
now it covers all criminals and all future criminal acts.
I don't disagree but you are still not addressing how the guns got into the hands of the felons, private sales, FFl's straw buyers should be held equally responsible. I don't believe that jail time will be a deterent for killers as in the case of Aurora, Columbine, Sandy Hook, they need to make it as difficult as possible for them to get guns in the forst place.
The examples of heavy artillary is to prove a point that gun people are not being logically consistent. They are drawing an arbitrary line between what should be legal and illegal. Since the 2nd Amendment isn't clear, it appears to strict constitutionalists that it allows EVERYTHING to be legal... even nuclear weapons. What you consider to be a lack of "common sense" is simply an illustration to show how absurd the 2nd Amendment folks are being.
To answer your questions: none of those things alter the lethality of the weapon... but that's completely missing the point.
As a ******* for common sense is this is just the sort of gibberish/bilge/folderal/bandersah BS you get.
They have no concept whatsoever about what it is to be an American.
I don't disagree but you are still not addressing how the guns got into the hands of the felons, private sales, FFl's straw buyers should be held equally responsible. I don't believe that jail time will be a deterent for killers as in the case of Aurora, Columbine, Sandy Hook, they need to make it as difficult as possible for them to get guns in the forst place.
I said this many times. Go after them. Add 10 or even 20 years to punish them!
The examples of heavy artillary is to prove a point that gun people are not being logically consistent. They are drawing an arbitrary line between what should be legal and illegal. Since the 2nd Amendment isn't clear, it appears to strict constitutionalists that it allows EVERYTHING to be legal... even nuclear weapons. What you consider to be a lack of "common sense" is simply an illustration to show how absurd the 2nd Amendment folks are being.
To answer your questions: none of those things alter the lethality of the weapon... but that's completely missing the point.
if you look at it that way you are correct. if you can afford it, then you can have it. you will have a hard time getting any material at all to make a nuke. most people could not afford to have their own tank or even afford to shoot full automatics.
let me tell you that shooting fully automatic firearms is not cheap.
there are some firearms i would like to have if not for federal restraints, and I dont see the need for the feds to make the laws against them anyways.
Just thought all the gun grabbers would like to read this. A doj memo was just leaked about a recent internal study that most of the proposed gun laws (hi cap mags, assault weapons, universal background checks) would not reduce gun crime. http://static.infowars.com/2013/02/i...olicy-memo.pdf
Supply sources can vary in different parts of the country. An NIJ funded study of the Los Angeles illicit gun market noted: “Results showed that many crime guns were first purchased at local—that is, in county—licensed dealers, rather than from out of state. That is,
, gun markets can be highly local. contrary to the conventional wisdom that crime guns were being trafficked across state borders from places with less stringent regulations, such as Arizona and Nevada, we found that a majority of the guns used in crimes were purchased in Los Angeles County.”
The examples of heavy artillary is to prove a point that gun people are not being logically consistent. They are drawing an arbitrary line between what should be legal and illegal. Since the 2nd Amendment isn't clear, it appears to strict constitutionalists that it allows EVERYTHING to be legal... even nuclear weapons. What you consider to be a lack of "common sense" is simply an illustration to show how absurd the 2nd Amendment folks are being.
it isn't at all arbitrary. just because you don't agree with a position and haven't taken the time or done the homework to understand it doesn't relegate that position to mindless stupidity. the fact is that the supreme court and even the NRA believe pretty firmly that the legal wording of the second amendment applies specifically to legal hand-portable firearms, not "cannons, trench mortars, rockets, missiles, antitank weapons (such as bazookas), and bombs[.]" The Second Amendment in Court The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Guarantees an Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms
We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostInHouston
A lot of those listed help in firing rounds at higher rates and for longer periods. Pistol grips can reduce wrist fatigue, allowing a shooter to fire for longer. Barrel shrouds and forward grips reduce heat transfer to the hand, which also allows the shooter to fire for longer. A folding stock aids in concealment.
none of those help you fires more rounds at faster rates for longer periods. have you ever even used a firearm of any kind?
a pistol grip is simply to give the shooter a more comfortable grip on the firearm; you even mention that barrel shrouds are to reduce burning injuries because of hot barrels; forward grips are to increase the shooter's control of a firearm; and a collapsable or folding stock makes a firearm smaller and more portable and concealable. none of those functions has anything to do with sending more rounds downrange faster. to argue your point, you'd need to add the barrel, trigger and iron sights to the list, because those things all help "in firing rounds at higher rates and for longer periods."
goodness gracious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoke_Jaguar4
It goes to why the person if firing the weapon. They improve the shooter's ability to hit their target (ie, lethality) for repeated firing over long distances. These items improve a weapon's offensive capability but add no functionality for personal defense. The one item on that list I'd remove is the pistol grip, since that's an effective means of using a shotgun for personal defense.
again, the above items have no function whatsoever with increasing lethality of a firearm. they are all for the safety and/or comfort of the firearm. and any function provided to a firearm in offensive capabilities is there for defensive capabilities as well. if you would like to argue otherwise, please explain to us how a barrel shroud neglects to help a defensive shooter, but helps an offensive shooter.
can't do it? try it with the collapsable stock. still stuck? what about a flash surpressor?
and again, if we are talking about banning these comfort/safety features because some people think that they improve a firearm's capability to kill people, why aren't we talking about the iron sights or the fact that they chamber real bullets? those are all much more important to the lethality of a firearm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
Old news, I know the AR-15 was the predecessor to the M16, the point is that the US military and others felt all those features were important enough to be used in battlefields, yet you are arguing that they are of marginal importance.
we are arguing that they are of marginal impact to the "lethality" of the firearm. some of the gun control crowd here seem to be trying to argue that these features make a firearm more lethal than one that doesn't have these features, and that is ridiculous.
gun control advocates chose those features because they seemed to be commonplace features of the big, bad, scary, black rifles that they were so afraid of, and despite the fact that the gun control champions couldn't even tell us what those features were for, the gun control crowd religiously holds on to the idea that those features make a firearm more lethal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
If it isn't the schools, it would be someplace else. Most of American life is a gun free zone.
not true at all. there are relatively few gun-free zones in america. schools and government buildings are some of those few, but government buildings are supplied with armed guards, so they are not actually gun-free either. everywhere else a criminal has to deal with the knowledge that he might run up against an off-duty or undercover officer or a concealed carry permit holder.
is it any wonder that they pick schools?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
Military rarely use the full auto but pistol grips are usefull no matter what the fire, 80-100 rounds a miinute or higher in semi - yes the pistol grip is useful.
There have been several situations where an AR-15 was used, the military put those features in for a very good reason.
"several situations" in which an ar-15 was used for what? if you mean crime, no there have only been a handful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly
Closing off the secondary market for guns is the proper policy action by closing the gun show loophole, creating a national registry, and strengthening mental checks.
national registries are questionable. in a perfect world, i would agree with you. but we live in an imperfect world where some gun control advocates really are trying to figure out how to take away all legally owned firearms, while doing nothing to stop the criminals and their firearms violence.
Quote:
This idea that criminals, children, and crazies should have unfettered access to guns is pure insanity. Then again, most gun nuts are insane and incapable of reason.
what is insane is your inability or refusal to understand that criminals, children and crazies are already restricted from owning firearms. "unfettered" access would mean that there are no obstacles in their way, wouldn't it? but that is clearly not the case, even just using the sandy hook massacre as an example, because the perpetrator was foiled in his attempts to legally purchase an assault weapon, wasn't he?
you're batting pretty low right now, just for the record.
and lastly, what constitutes a gun nut? anyone that doesn't agree with your opinion about firearms and gun control?
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.
