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.
pro gun testimony seems to be fact based. The anti gun testimony like the nut nutter is all feel good, if we just get rid of guns the sun will shine, storms will stop and we will all just get along. LOL this guy is an idiot.
pro gun testimony seems to be fact based. The anti gun testimony like the nut nutter is all feel good, if we just get rid of guns the sun will shine, storms will stop and we will all just get along. LOL this guy is an idiot.
Yep, so lets do nothing. Sorry first graders, but your lives are the price we're willing to pay to have guns capable of sustained fire of a round a second.
Yep, so lets do nothing. Sorry first graders, but your lives are the price we're willing to pay to have guns capable of sustained fire of a round a second.
Maybe you should try regulating revolvers, lever action rifles and pump shotguns since they can all be fired faster than a round a second.
Yep, so lets do nothing. Sorry first graders, but your lives are the price we're willing to pay to have guns capable of sustained fire of a round a second.
What do you mean "do nothing"? Everybody is saying to enforce the current law.
The problem is not lack of control; the problem is lack of enforcement.
Key word you didn't bother reading in my original statement: "SUSTAINED"
What revolver can sustain a round per second rate of fire over say a minute?
Actually... one round per second is kinda slow. Even sustained for "say a minute". A double-action six-shot with a swing-out cylinder and several speed-loaders can do it easily.
"Sustained fire" is simply a matter of ability to rapidly reload. While a removable magazine is obviously the fastest method, and the one easiest to understand by people who don't know anything about guns, it's easy to get high rates of sustained fire with most other types of magazine with the proper speed loader. Revolvers, tube magazines, fixed vertical magazine, etc.
Actually... one round per second is kinda slow. Even sustained for "say a minute". A double-action six-shot with a swing-out cylinder and several speed-loaders can do it easily.
"Sustained fire" is simply a matter of ability to rapidly reload. While a removable magazine is obviously the fastest method, and the one easiest to understand by people who don't know anything about guns, it's easy to get high rates of sustained fire with most other types of magazine with the proper speed loader. Revolvers, tube magazines, fixed vertical magazine, etc.
Lost is hung up on a single word, for some unknown reason. I don't know if he's just ignorant about the sport of shooting or if he's got some ulterior motive and is deliberately dragging the discussion into the weeds, but don't allow yourself to be entangled in his web "sustained ignorance." Stick to the things that matter.
Yep, so lets do nothing. Sorry first graders, but your lives are the price we're willing to pay to have guns capable of sustained fire of a round a second.
I agree with the first part of your name LOST. You don't know or understand anything about guns, how they work and how deadly they are or are not, or their limitations.
First off the testimony that the liberal feel good knee jerks tried to over ride was a study done that shows that one gun the Mini 14 with a folding stock was on the list of prohibited guns, and a Mini 14 was on the list of protected guns only because it had a wood stock with no pistol grip. It was also pointed out that a 12 ga shotgun with buck shot, that is 9 32 caliber balls going out at one single pull of the trigger was more deadly than an AR at close range.
So if someone who was proficient with a shotgun was to do what Lanza did with that shotgun they could have caused much more death than Lanza did with and AR. Now does anyone think for one second that LOST would say if that happened that "well it was not an assault semi auto so its OK" ? Do you? not in a million fing years. LOST would come out with the rest of his/her liberal buddies and say no one needs this kind of destructive device. No one needs to protect them self with an assault shotgun. A double barrel or single shot shotgun would allow people to get away if that had been the only thing the [factious shooter] had used.
The liberals would come out of the wood work to say we need to now ban pump shotguns and buck shot and semi auto shotguns and tax them. The end result of what they want is no one owning guns. They are all illegal.
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.
Just sayin'...
