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.
Not necessarily. When I concerns the Second Amendment there are just as many liberals as conservatives who feel that our right should be protected. Conversely, there are just as many conservatives who are anti-gun as there are liberals. The Second Amendment is non-partisan.
Do you expect our Armed Services to protect the country from invasion or are you going to take it upon yourself to do so? Yes, I do expect law enforcement to keep my community safe and that they be sufficiently funded to do so.
Sure, we all try to protect our family and we also rely on law enforcement to keep the community safe. While out of the home we protect our family by avoiding situations that pose a risk. If you choose to be a vigilante in protecting your family & in the process cause harm to a innocent bystander, be prepared to pay the consequences. The court takes a dim view of vigilantism.
Well if they are protecting the country from invasion, they are doing a terrible job. Twenty million illegal aliens... Or is it 30 million now?
I am a PROUD gun owner and I refuse to rely on other people to protect me and my child. I live alone with my 2 year old. Anyone can break in and harm us. (well this is NH and everyone and their mother have guns yet one of the safest states in the nation.) But I promise you: if anyone comes into my place with the intent to harm me or my daughter, they won't make it out of here on their own. Body bag. Or maybe on a stretcher if they are lucky.
"The AR is also affordable to shooters on a budget, and that just won't do, ya see"
AFFORDABLE??? You gotta be kidding! There is no way I can justify spending $700 to $1000 or more on a rifle!
Many years ago, I spent less than $200 for my Remington pump action 30.06, and also less than $200 for the Remington semi-auto 30.06 (same action, different operating system, but one of them will soon be illegal in CA!).
IMO, that .223 cartridge is only marginally better than the old .30 carbine round
I would much rather have a 30.06.
Ummm...ok. So sorry to so offend your sensibilities Mr. Cooper. Nevertheless, doesn't change anything. My AR didn't require I mortgage my soul, and it works fine for what I use it for. Besides, we are not comparing weenie size here. It's about why the rifle is so demonized, which you failed to comment on, when you quoted me.
At any rate, chill...dude. :-) I know the limits of the 223 and am familiar with the exalted reputation of the heavy 30s. I cut my teeth on the old Garand.
True, most gun crimes have to do with guns. So, using your analogy, we should ban guns. I don't think anyone's suggested that but thanks for your input.
No, we should focus on the cause of crime rather than the tools. I already stated that. Reading comprehension is your friend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellowmike
Ban the manufacture of high capacity magazines for civilian use which would make them harder to come by.
Not particularly. Question for you: How may high capacity magazines are currently in existence? How many are manufactured every year? How hard are they to make at home? Answer those questions and you will understand how silly the entire idea is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellowmike
Back in the 30's they banned machine guns for the general public & I don't see as much use of machine guns since then. If a suggested ban of machine guns were put on the table at the present time, the NRA & gun manufactures would surely fight it as an assault on your 2nd amendment rights.
First of all, machine guns were never banned. There is tighter restriction on the ownership of fully automatic weapons, but they are still perfectly legal to own. The NFA of 1934 didn't put a dent in firearms crime, it merely made criminals switch to other weapons. As has been stated many times and as you have ignored just as many, focusing on the cause of crime is the solution. Prohibition ended and firearms crime went down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellowmike
Putting bans on certain weapons today would be much like putting bans on machine guns in the 30s.
Contrary to what you write, it would reduce crime just as the ban on machine guns did.
Again, the NFA of 1934 didn't ban anything, it merely placed tighter restrictions on firearms which weren't actually that commonly used in crime to begin with (hmm, I do see some similarity there). Nor did it reduce crime in any measurable fashion. As stated above, what reduced crime was ending the stupidity of Prohibition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellowmike
You're tired of arguing how many rounds you need for xx activity because you can't justify having a high number of rounds for xx activity. It makes no sense to have high capacity magazines, period.
No, I'm tired of idiots pretending that anyone should have to justify their need for a high capacity magazine. You and your ilk have been trying to turn the 2nd Amendment argument into a question of need for years. I don't need to justify anything to you. If anything, the need for justification falls on the heads of those who wish to strip U.S. citizens of their constitutional rights. After all, you are the ones who are trying to circumvent the 2nd Amendment without following the due process which is required for repeal.
well, there is some questions on reloading a magazine. Here is my 12 year old reloading a 10 round magazine. First time ever. Just think what a trained person can do, or someone who practices allot. Not the best video from photobcuket. But, it was less than 10 seconds even with the fumble to put mag in. http://s280.photobucket.com/user/riv...zines.mp4.html
Well if they are protecting the country from invasion, they are doing a terrible job. Twenty million illegal aliens... Or is it 30 million now?
I am a PROUD gun owner and I refuse to rely on other people to protect me and my child. I live alone with my 2 year old. Anyone can break in and harm us. (well this is NH and everyone and their mother have guns yet one of the safest states in the nation.) But I promise you: if anyone comes into my place with the intent to harm me or my daughter, they won't make it out of here on their own. Body bag. Or maybe on a stretcher if they are lucky.
Indeed, self defense is NOT "vigalanteism", is it. It's not like there is a cop assigned to every citizen, waiting to be called for a protect/serve. Maybe a half hour or so, sees them show. A lot can happen in just seconds. LE might get there in time to call EMS or a coroner. Hopefully, not for you.
We have kinda gone off topic. People just dont get it. Guns dont load themselves, and guns dont shoot with bad intent. Its people that do.
There are way to many guns to confiscate, and too many people that WONT give them up. Period.
Criminals will find a way to get what they need, and gunlaws dont stop illegally getting something. Liberals dont get this, and never will.
If it wasn't her what other grabber was it? I am almost certain it was her. Boxer maybe i guess i was pretty busy laughing and i was also driving in traffic.
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.
