***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (4 Viewers)

[JHuber77]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

I've got a stock 9mm that carries 18 rounds. If I add a magazine extension, I could easily carry 20 rounds. This whole debate shouldn't just be about certain types of guns because any gun can kill quite a few people in a very short amount of time with the exception of most weapons produced before the 20th century.

 

[Slingblade]

One more question. If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

It would take a few seconds per mag change, so the extra changes involved would add up to an extra 20-30 seconds where people could get away and every second would count in that situation. Really, wouldn't one life saved in that situation be enough?

It wouldnt matter at all, as quite a few people can change an AR magazine in less than a second. Once the handle is charged an AR magazine change is very simple. Just one button and a slap against the bolt catch and your loaded again.

I think the number of people alive who could swap in a second or less, while moving and shooting at moving targets in an environment like that is probably pretty small. But let's assume you are right and they average one second per change. That's still an extra second happening 10 times, and a single second can easily be the difference between life and death for someone trying to escape a situation like that.

With a little practice, one can change a magazine very quickly.I'm calling bull#### on a few seconds making that big of a difference.

 

[Slingblade]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

I've got a stock 9mm that carries 18 rounds. If I add a magazine extension, I could easily carry 20 rounds. This whole debate shouldn't just be about certain types of guns because any gun can kill quite a few people in a very short amount of time with the exception of any weapon produced before the 20th century.

Exactly. I could kill quite a few people with my bolt action internal magazine Nagant that was made in 1943. It doesn't take long to throw in another 5 rounds with a clip.

 

[JHuber77]

One more question. If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

It would take a few seconds per mag change, so the extra changes involved would add up to an extra 20-30 seconds where people could get away and every second would count in that situation. Really, wouldn't one life saved in that situation be enough?

It wouldnt matter at all, as quite a few people can change an AR magazine in less than a second. Once the handle is charged an AR magazine change is very simple. Just one button and a slap against the bolt catch and your loaded again.

I think the number of people alive who could swap in a second or less, while moving and shooting at moving targets in an environment like that is probably pretty small. But let's assume you are right and they average one second per change. That's still an extra second happening 10 times, and a single second can easily be the difference between life and death for someone trying to escape a situation like that.

Doesn't matter. You can still do this with a handgun as well.

 

[Mark Davis]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.

I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

So what? You don't see a need for it? Congrats?

OK, what "need" do you have for it? Or are you just wanting to drop pants and see who has the biggest given your tone?

First of all, 2nd amendment right. I don't have to show a need.

Second of all, multiple intruders, clearing my house, disaster situation, ec...

You mentioned the word "need" first, that's why I asked. I already mentioned I carried a gun so I support the 2nd amendment. I happen to believe you can support the 2nd amendment while not needing some of the most lethal weapons to be available to civilians. How many intruders could you not clear with a 9MM? If it's more than that, you're dead anyway unless you're John Rambo or somebody. One is going to shoot you way before you get that many shots off. They could have pistols with a single bullet in them and you'd still be dead.

 

[Mark Davis]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

I've got a stock 9mm that carries 18 rounds. If I add a magazine extension, I could easily carry 20 rounds. This whole debate shouldn't just be about certain types of guns because any gun can kill quite a few people in a very short amount of time with the exception of most weapons produced before the 20th century.

That's a valid point.

 

[Koya]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.

I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

So what? You don't see a need for it? Congrats?

OK, what "need" do you have for it? Or are you just wanting to drop pants and see who has the biggest given your tone?

First of all, 2nd amendment right. I don't have to show a need.

Second of all, multiple intruders, clearing my house, disaster situation, ec...

I am a strong proponent of individual rights. Including the right to bear arms.That said, to flippantly reply as if the 2nd amendment takes all possibility of a rational and truly openminded conversation about the matter out of the equation, then that's a sad statement.

Here we have terrible shooting after terrible shooting. Darn straight there is SOME need to show a need. Because eventually, if this goes unchecked, that 2nd amendment would become questionable whereas now most respect that right but want to find the right balance.

While it has been a while, let's not act like there is no ability to amend the constitution. These are laws of men that must be reviewed from time to time, not immutable truths.

Now, I do believe in the 2nd amendment. But we must now realize that the rights of non gun owners / innocents is becoming endangered - rights more important than say, the right to some arms (cause the right not to be shot by one for no reason trumps it). So, to preserve the 2nd amendment, we better have a real and open conversation about how to best interpret it in the modernity we live in.

 

[timschochet]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.

I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

So what? You don't see a need for it? Congrats?

OK, what "need" do you have for it? Or are you just wanting to drop pants and see who has the biggest given your tone?

First of all, 2nd amendment right. I don't have to show a need.

Second of all, multiple intruders, clearing my house, disaster situation, ec...

Sorry but the 2nd amendment doesn't give you a right to a high capacity magazine, nor to a semi-automatic weapon if the government decides to make them illegal. (I don't think they should, but I also don't believe anyone has a "right" to such weapons..

 

[Tremendous Upside]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.

I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

So what? You don't see a need for it? Congrats?

OK, what "need" do you have for it? Or are you just wanting to drop pants and see who has the biggest given your tone?

First of all, 2nd amendment right. I don't have to show a need.

Second of all, multiple intruders, clearing my house, disaster situation, ec...

The 2nd Amendment isn't all encompassing

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

One more question. If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

It would take a few seconds per mag change, so the extra changes involved would add up to an extra 20-30 seconds where people could get away and every second would count in that situation. Really, wouldn't one life saved in that situation be enough?

It wouldnt matter at all, as quite a few people can change an AR magazine in less than a second. Once the handle is charged an AR magazine change is very simple. Just one button and a slap against the bolt catch and your loaded again.

I think the number of people alive who could swap in a second or less, while moving and shooting at moving targets in an environment like that is probably pretty small. But let's assume you are right and they average one second per change. That's still an extra second happening 10 times, and a single second can easily be the difference between life and death for someone trying to escape a situation like that.

With a little practice, one can change a magazine very quickly.I'm calling bull#### on a few seconds making that big of a difference.

I imagine the families of the kids who were saved because of the teachers who sacrificed themselves and bought a few extra seconds for their kids to get away in Sandy Hook feel differently.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

One more question. If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

It would take a few seconds per mag change, so the extra changes involved would add up to an extra 20-30 seconds where people could get away and every second would count in that situation. Really, wouldn't one life saved in that situation be enough?

It wouldnt matter at all, as quite a few people can change an AR magazine in less than a second. Once the handle is charged an AR magazine change is very simple. Just one button and a slap against the bolt catch and your loaded again.

I think the number of people alive who could swap in a second or less, while moving and shooting at moving targets in an environment like that is probably pretty small. But let's assume you are right and they average one second per change. That's still an extra second happening 10 times, and a single second can easily be the difference between life and death for someone trying to escape a situation like that.

Doesn't matter. You can still do this with a handgun as well.

Sure, and dramatically fewer people would die.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

I've got a stock 9mm that carries 18 rounds. If I add a magazine extension, I could easily carry 20 rounds. This whole debate shouldn't just be about certain types of guns because any gun can kill quite a few people in a very short amount of time with the exception of most weapons produced before the 20th century.

That's a valid point.

I think we could make a substantial change if we drew the line before semi-automatic weapons of any kind. It's really where the mass killing ability kicks in, with little to no practical defensive value added.

 

[Slingblade]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.

I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

So what? You don't see a need for it? Congrats?

OK, what "need" do you have for it? Or are you just wanting to drop pants and see who has the biggest given your tone?

First of all, 2nd amendment right. I don't have to show a need.

Second of all, multiple intruders, clearing my house, disaster situation, ec...

I am a strong proponent of individual rights. Including the right to bear arms.That said, to flippantly reply as if the 2nd amendment takes all possibility of a rational and truly openminded conversation about the matter out of the equation, then that's a sad statement.

Here we have terrible shooting after terrible shooting. Darn straight there is SOME need to show a need. Because eventually, if this goes unchecked, that 2nd amendment would become questionable whereas now most respect that right but want to find the right balance.

While it has been a while, let's not act like there is no ability to amend the constitution. These are laws of men that must be reviewed from time to time, not immutable truths.

Now, I do believe in the 2nd amendment. But we must now realize that the rights of non gun owners / innocents is becoming endangered - rights more important than say, the right to some arms (cause the right not to be shot by one for no reason trumps it). So, to preserve the 2nd amendment, we better have a real and open conversation about how to best interpret it in the modernity we live in.

These are not just any amendments. This is the Bill of Right we are talking about here.The foundation of our society and government.

 

[Slingblade]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.

I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

So what? You don't see a need for it? Congrats?

OK, what "need" do you have for it? Or are you just wanting to drop pants and see who has the biggest given your tone?

First of all, 2nd amendment right. I don't have to show a need.

Second of all, multiple intruders, clearing my house, disaster situation, ec...

Sorry but the 2nd amendment doesn't give you a right to a high capacity magazine, nor to a semi-automatic weapon if the government decides to make them illegal. (I don't think they should, but I also don't believe anyone has a "right" to such weapons..

That's where we fundamentally disagree.

 

[Slingblade]

One more question. If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

It would take a few seconds per mag change, so the extra changes involved would add up to an extra 20-30 seconds where people could get away and every second would count in that situation. Really, wouldn't one life saved in that situation be enough?

It wouldnt matter at all, as quite a few people can change an AR magazine in less than a second. Once the handle is charged an AR magazine change is very simple. Just one button and a slap against the bolt catch and your loaded again.

I think the number of people alive who could swap in a second or less, while moving and shooting at moving targets in an environment like that is probably pretty small. But let's assume you are right and they average one second per change. That's still an extra second happening 10 times, and a single second can easily be the difference between life and death for someone trying to escape a situation like that.

Doesn't matter. You can still do this with a handgun as well.

Sure, and dramatically fewer people would die.

Bull####. A handgun can be just as effective as a rifle, if not more in CQC.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.

I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

So what? You don't see a need for it? Congrats?

OK, what "need" do you have for it? Or are you just wanting to drop pants and see who has the biggest given your tone?

First of all, 2nd amendment right. I don't have to show a need.

Second of all, multiple intruders, clearing my house, disaster situation, ec...

I am a strong proponent of individual rights. Including the right to bear arms.That said, to flippantly reply as if the 2nd amendment takes all possibility of a rational and truly openminded conversation about the matter out of the equation, then that's a sad statement.

Here we have terrible shooting after terrible shooting. Darn straight there is SOME need to show a need. Because eventually, if this goes unchecked, that 2nd amendment would become questionable whereas now most respect that right but want to find the right balance.

While it has been a while, let's not act like there is no ability to amend the constitution. These are laws of men that must be reviewed from time to time, not immutable truths.

Now, I do believe in the 2nd amendment. But we must now realize that the rights of non gun owners / innocents is becoming endangered - rights more important than say, the right to some arms (cause the right not to be shot by one for no reason trumps it). So, to preserve the 2nd amendment, we better have a real and open conversation about how to best interpret it in the modernity we live in.

These are not just any amendments. This is the Bill of Right we are talking about here.The foundation of our society and government.

You cannot possibly think that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment with assault rifles and high magazine capacity in mind

 

[Slingblade]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.

I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

So what? You don't see a need for it? Congrats?

OK, what "need" do you have for it? Or are you just wanting to drop pants and see who has the biggest given your tone?

First of all, 2nd amendment right. I don't have to show a need.

Second of all, multiple intruders, clearing my house, disaster situation, ec...

I am a strong proponent of individual rights. Including the right to bear arms.That said, to flippantly reply as if the 2nd amendment takes all possibility of a rational and truly openminded conversation about the matter out of the equation, then that's a sad statement.

Here we have terrible shooting after terrible shooting. Darn straight there is SOME need to show a need. Because eventually, if this goes unchecked, that 2nd amendment would become questionable whereas now most respect that right but want to find the right balance.

While it has been a while, let's not act like there is no ability to amend the constitution. These are laws of men that must be reviewed from time to time, not immutable truths.

Now, I do believe in the 2nd amendment. But we must now realize that the rights of non gun owners / innocents is becoming endangered - rights more important than say, the right to some arms (cause the right not to be shot by one for no reason trumps it). So, to preserve the 2nd amendment, we better have a real and open conversation about how to best interpret it in the modernity we live in.

These are not just any amendments. This is the Bill of Right we are talking about here.The foundation of our society and government.

You cannot possibly think that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment with assault rifles and high magazine capacity in mind

Nor did they write the 1st with the internet and television in mind. Yet we extend those rights to those media.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.

I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

So what? You don't see a need for it? Congrats?

OK, what "need" do you have for it? Or are you just wanting to drop pants and see who has the biggest given your tone?

First of all, 2nd amendment right. I don't have to show a need.

Second of all, multiple intruders, clearing my house, disaster situation, ec...

I am a strong proponent of individual rights. Including the right to bear arms.That said, to flippantly reply as if the 2nd amendment takes all possibility of a rational and truly openminded conversation about the matter out of the equation, then that's a sad statement.

Here we have terrible shooting after terrible shooting. Darn straight there is SOME need to show a need. Because eventually, if this goes unchecked, that 2nd amendment would become questionable whereas now most respect that right but want to find the right balance.

While it has been a while, let's not act like there is no ability to amend the constitution. These are laws of men that must be reviewed from time to time, not immutable truths.

Now, I do believe in the 2nd amendment. But we must now realize that the rights of non gun owners / innocents is becoming endangered - rights more important than say, the right to some arms (cause the right not to be shot by one for no reason trumps it). So, to preserve the 2nd amendment, we better have a real and open conversation about how to best interpret it in the modernity we live in.

These are not just any amendments. This is the Bill of Right we are talking about here.The foundation of our society and government.

You cannot possibly think that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment with assault rifles and high magazine capacity in mind

Nor did they write the 1st with the internet and television in mind. Yet we extend those rights to those media.

Oh, we're going strawman already? Neat...

 

[timschochet]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.

I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

So what? You don't see a need for it? Congrats?

OK, what "need" do you have for it? Or are you just wanting to drop pants and see who has the biggest given your tone?

First of all, 2nd amendment right. I don't have to show a need.

Second of all, multiple intruders, clearing my house, disaster situation, ec...

Sorry but the 2nd amendment doesn't give you a right to a high capacity magazine, nor to a semi-automatic weapon if the government decides to make them illegal. (I don't think they should, but I also don't believe anyone has a "right" to such weapons..

That's where we fundamentally disagree.

Well, fortunately for my POV, the Supreme Court agrees with me. Do you understand what "well-regulated" means?

 

[Mark Davis]

It seems that a lot of the debate is whether any restrictions at all should be placed on arms. Technically an anti-aircraft gun is an arm but I don't see a need for that either in my backyard. I also think the authorities would have a problem with it. I do admit it would be pretty cool to stock with tracer bullets and open up at night, but I digress. I don't view it as my right to own it.

 

[gcoast3]

So the US is ok with states legalizing drugs but ok with banning guns. This world is screwed up.

 

[Slingblade]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.

I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

So what? You don't see a need for it? Congrats?

OK, what "need" do you have for it? Or are you just wanting to drop pants and see who has the biggest given your tone?

First of all, 2nd amendment right. I don't have to show a need.

Second of all, multiple intruders, clearing my house, disaster situation, ec...

Sorry but the 2nd amendment doesn't give you a right to a high capacity magazine, nor to a semi-automatic weapon if the government decides to make them illegal. (I don't think they should, but I also don't believe anyone has a "right" to such weapons..

That's where we fundamentally disagree.

Well, fortunately for my POV, the Supreme Court agrees with me. Do you understand what "well-regulated" means?

It's a highly subjective term.

 

[Slingblade]

So the US is ok with states legalizing drugs but ok with banning guns. This world is screwed up.

But the laws work so well on stopping illegal drugs! Amiright? Guys?

 

[Neovivo]

Cliff notes to this point please.

 

[Slingblade]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.

I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

So what? You don't see a need for it? Congrats?

OK, what "need" do you have for it? Or are you just wanting to drop pants and see who has the biggest given your tone?

First of all, 2nd amendment right. I don't have to show a need.

Second of all, multiple intruders, clearing my house, disaster situation, ec...

I am a strong proponent of individual rights. Including the right to bear arms.

That said, to flippantly reply as if the 2nd amendment takes all possibility of a rational and truly openminded conversation about the matter out of the equation, then that's a sad statement.

Here we have terrible shooting after terrible shooting. Darn straight there is SOME need to show a need. Because eventually, if this goes unchecked, that 2nd amendment would become questionable whereas now most respect that right but want to find the right balance.

While it has been a while, let's not act like there is no ability to amend the constitution. These are laws of men that must be reviewed from time to time, not immutable truths.

Now, I do believe in the 2nd amendment. But we must now realize that the rights of non gun owners / innocents is becoming endangered - rights more important than say, the right to some arms (cause the right not to be shot by one for no reason trumps it). So, to preserve the 2nd amendment, we better have a real and open conversation about how to best interpret it in the modernity we live in.

These are not just any amendments. This is the Bill of Right we are talking about here.The foundation of our society and government.

You cannot possibly think that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment with assault rifles and high magazine capacity in mind

Nor did they write the 1st with the internet and television in mind. Yet we extend those rights to those media.

Oh, we're going strawman already? Neat...

Neat...my point is still valid no matter what random logical fallacy you want to attach.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.

I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

So what? You don't see a need for it? Congrats?

OK, what "need" do you have for it? Or are you just wanting to drop pants and see who has the biggest given your tone?

First of all, 2nd amendment right. I don't have to show a need.

Second of all, multiple intruders, clearing my house, disaster situation, ec...

I am a strong proponent of individual rights. Including the right to bear arms.

That said, to flippantly reply as if the 2nd amendment takes all possibility of a rational and truly openminded conversation about the matter out of the equation, then that's a sad statement.

Here we have terrible shooting after terrible shooting. Darn straight there is SOME need to show a need. Because eventually, if this goes unchecked, that 2nd amendment would become questionable whereas now most respect that right but want to find the right balance.

While it has been a while, let's not act like there is no ability to amend the constitution. These are laws of men that must be reviewed from time to time, not immutable truths.

Now, I do believe in the 2nd amendment. But we must now realize that the rights of non gun owners / innocents is becoming endangered - rights more important than say, the right to some arms (cause the right not to be shot by one for no reason trumps it). So, to preserve the 2nd amendment, we better have a real and open conversation about how to best interpret it in the modernity we live in.

These are not just any amendments. This is the Bill of Right we are talking about here.The foundation of our society and government.

You cannot possibly think that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment with assault rifles and high magazine capacity in mind

Nor did they write the 1st with the internet and television in mind. Yet we extend those rights to those media.

Oh, we're going strawman already? Neat...

Neat...my point is still valid no matter what random logical fallacy you want to attach.

No, it really isn't

 

[Slingblade]

No, it really isn't

 

[Tremendous Upside]

No, it really isn't

Honest question...Do you think I should constitutionally allowed to own a nuclear weapon?

 

[Slingblade]

No, it really isn't

Honest question...Do you think I should constitutionally allowed to own a nuclear weapon?

You're hilarious.

 

[Mark Davis]

No, it really isn't

Honest question...Do you think I should constitutionally allowed to own a nuclear weapon?

If you can have that I really want my own anti-air battery for the backyard. I get planes and helicopters in the area at night all the time. As a compromise I might be open to a short range surface to surface missile loaded with sarin gas.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

No, it really isn't

Honest question...Do you think I should constitutionally allowed to own a nuclear weapon?

You're hilarious.

Answer the question

 

[Mark Davis]

No, it really isn't

Honest question...Do you think I should constitutionally allowed to own a nuclear weapon?

You're hilarious.

I think what he's asking is what "arm" under the "right to bear arms" is too much? Unless you are ok with his statement then we are all agreeing there are some arms that private citizens shouldn't own. The question is then merely where the line is.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

One more question. If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

It would take a few seconds per mag change, so the extra changes involved would add up to an extra 20-30 seconds where people could get away and every second would count in that situation. Really, wouldn't one life saved in that situation be enough?

It wouldnt matter at all, as quite a few people can change an AR magazine in less than a second. Once the handle is charged an AR magazine change is very simple. Just one button and a slap against the bolt catch and your loaded again.

I think the number of people alive who could swap in a second or less, while moving and shooting at moving targets in an environment like that is probably pretty small. But let's assume you are right and they average one second per change. That's still an extra second happening 10 times, and a single second can easily be the difference between life and death for someone trying to escape a situation like that.

Doesn't matter. You can still do this with a handgun as well.

Sure, and dramatically fewer people would die.

Bull####. A handgun can be just as effective as a rifle, if not more in CQC.

I didn't catch that he was referring to using a high-capacity magazine. In that context I agree, and it's why I think we should effectively ban semi-automatic handguns as well.

 

[Slingblade]

One more question.

If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?

How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

It would take a few seconds per mag change, so the extra changes involved would add up to an extra 20-30 seconds where people could get away and every second would count in that situation. Really, wouldn't one life saved in that situation be enough?

It wouldnt matter at all, as quite a few people can change an AR magazine in less than a second. Once the handle is charged an AR magazine change is very simple. Just one button and a slap against the bolt catch and your loaded again.

I think the number of people alive who could swap in a second or less, while moving and shooting at moving targets in an environment like that is probably pretty small. But let's assume you are right and they average one second per change. That's still an extra second happening 10 times, and a single second can easily be the difference between life and death for someone trying to escape a situation like that.

Doesn't matter. You can still do this with a handgun as well.

Sure, and dramatically fewer people would die.

Bull####. A handgun can be just as effective as a rifle, if not more in CQC.

I didn't catch that he was referring to using a high-capacity magazine. In that context I agree, and it's why I think we should effectively ban semi-automatic handguns as well.

Maybe you should move to the ####### UK?

 

[JHuber77]

One more question. If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

It would take a few seconds per mag change, so the extra changes involved would add up to an extra 20-30 seconds where people could get away and every second would count in that situation. Really, wouldn't one life saved in that situation be enough?

It wouldnt matter at all, as quite a few people can change an AR magazine in less than a second. Once the handle is charged an AR magazine change is very simple. Just one button and a slap against the bolt catch and your loaded again.

I think the number of people alive who could swap in a second or less, while moving and shooting at moving targets in an environment like that is probably pretty small. But let's assume you are right and they average one second per change. That's still an extra second happening 10 times, and a single second can easily be the difference between life and death for someone trying to escape a situation like that.

Doesn't matter. You can still do this with a handgun as well.

Sure, and dramatically fewer people would die.

Bull####. A handgun can be just as effective as a rifle, if not more in CQC.

I didn't catch that he was referring to using a high-capacity magazine. In that context I agree, and it's why I think we should effectively ban semi-automatic handguns as well.

You can make any magazine into a high capacity magazine with the exception of an internal magazine. All you need is a longer spring. You can also make a regular magazine hold more ammunition if you shorten the spring making more room for ammo to fit. This argument is so flawed.

 

[Slingblade]

No, it really isn't

Honest question...Do you think I should constitutionally allowed to own a nuclear weapon?

You're hilarious.

I think what he's asking is what "arm" under the "right to bear arms" is too much? Unless you are ok with his statement then we are all agreeing there are some arms that private citizens shouldn't own. The question is then merely where the line is.

So I can "bear" a nuke now? You don't have to be so ####### outrageous.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

No, it really isn't

Honest question...Do you think I should constitutionally allowed to own a nuclear weapon?

You're hilarious.

I think what he's asking is what "arm" under the "right to bear arms" is too much? Unless you are ok with his statement then we are all agreeing there are some arms that private citizens shouldn't own. The question is then merely where the line is.

So I can "bear" a nuke now? You don't have to be so ####### outrageous.

OK, so we've established that there is a line...Where would you draw it?I am not trolling or inciting anything here, I am legitimately interested in the discussion

 

[Koya]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.

I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

So what? You don't see a need for it? Congrats?

OK, what "need" do you have for it? Or are you just wanting to drop pants and see who has the biggest given your tone?

First of all, 2nd amendment right. I don't have to show a need.

Second of all, multiple intruders, clearing my house, disaster situation, ec...

I am a strong proponent of individual rights. Including the right to bear arms.That said, to flippantly reply as if the 2nd amendment takes all possibility of a rational and truly openminded conversation about the matter out of the equation, then that's a sad statement.

Here we have terrible shooting after terrible shooting. Darn straight there is SOME need to show a need. Because eventually, if this goes unchecked, that 2nd amendment would become questionable whereas now most respect that right but want to find the right balance.

While it has been a while, let's not act like there is no ability to amend the constitution. These are laws of men that must be reviewed from time to time, not immutable truths.

Now, I do believe in the 2nd amendment. But we must now realize that the rights of non gun owners / innocents is becoming endangered - rights more important than say, the right to some arms (cause the right not to be shot by one for no reason trumps it). So, to preserve the 2nd amendment, we better have a real and open conversation about how to best interpret it in the modernity we live in.

These are not just any amendments. This is the Bill of Right we are talking about here.The foundation of our society and government.

Which is why I think it's in our interest to find a way to responsibly preserve 2nd amendment rights. Because the downside of risking more acts like Sandy Hook to occur is, obviously, the additional death and pain... but also an eventual necessity to drastically restrict the 2nd amendment as we know it.So, let's not be bull headed about this, and find something reasonable. If not, those who most want the 2nd amendment will see even more of it erode over time. And at great loss of life and community along the way. Sorry, but the whole concept of the ability to amend and have the constitution grow.

Now, the issues are completely different, but the 3/5 clause was not even in the bill of rights, but the text itself - and overturned by the 13th Amendment. So if the text itself can be amended, so can an amendment, including the Bill of Rights. Let's hope we can be reasonable enough not to need that and find other solutions that provide safety and rights for gun owners, non gun owners and innocents across the country who shouldn't be at risk of being killed because others want the right to certain guns, if indeed regulating some of those rights, without destroying the intent of the 2nd amendment, would save lives. And preserve gun rights that are, imo, such a critical component of the freedom we love in this nation.

But once again, my freedom to not be killed because of a poor gun policy trumps the rights of some who enjoy certain unfettered freedoms under those poor gun policies.

 

[Mark Davis]

No, it really isn't

Honest question...Do you think I should constitutionally allowed to own a nuclear weapon?

You're hilarious.

I think what he's asking is what "arm" under the "right to bear arms" is too much? Unless you are ok with his statement then we are all agreeing there are some arms that private citizens shouldn't own. The question is then merely where the line is.

So I can "bear" a nuke now? You don't have to be so ####### outrageous.

It's just a point that the 2nd amendment doesn't extend to every arm. We are debating where the line should be, it's not an argument of whether there should be any line at all.

 

[Slingblade]

No, it really isn't

Honest question...Do you think I should constitutionally allowed to own a nuclear weapon?

You're hilarious.

I think what he's asking is what "arm" under the "right to bear arms" is too much? Unless you are ok with his statement then we are all agreeing there are some arms that private citizens shouldn't own. The question is then merely where the line is.

So I can "bear" a nuke now? You don't have to be so ####### outrageous.

OK, so we've established that there is a line...Where would you draw it?I am not trolling or inciting anything here, I am legitimately interested in the discussion

Obviously there is a difference in using an AR-15 to defend my family and using a nuke to defend them.

 

[Dvorak]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

I've got a stock 9mm that carries 18 rounds. If I add a magazine extension, I could easily carry 20 rounds. This whole debate shouldn't just be about certain types of guns because any gun can kill quite a few people in a very short amount of time with the exception of any weapon produced before the 20th century.

Exactly. I could kill quite a few people with my bolt action internal magazine Nagant that was made in 1943. It doesn't take long to throw in another 5 rounds with a clip.

Holy c***! The first, and quite possibly only, correct use of the word "clip" on the Internet in the last 7 days!

 

[Koya]

No, it really isn't

Honest question...Do you think I should constitutionally allowed to own a nuclear weapon?

You're hilarious.

I think what he's asking is what "arm" under the "right to bear arms" is too much? Unless you are ok with his statement then we are all agreeing there are some arms that private citizens shouldn't own. The question is then merely where the line is.

So I can "bear" a nuke now? You don't have to be so ####### outrageous.

OK, so we've established that there is a line...Where would you draw it?I am not trolling or inciting anything here, I am legitimately interested in the discussion

Sling, this is a very legit argument. I think we'd all agree that there shouldn't be a system that allows people to have nukes. Or say a loaded tank. Ground to rocket missles. Smaller missles. Live Grenades. Vehicle mounted large caliber guns. Heavy assult weapons. Assault weapons. Semi Automatics. Rifles. Handguns.It's a spectrum. Let's PLEASE have a legitimate conversation here. Where along that line is the 2nd amendment ok, and where is it not?That's part of what we need to discuss. It can't be all or nothing because I'll tell you, much as I am a huge fan of personal freedoms and rights, I surely don't want to live in a nation where everyone can have rocket launchers and nukes.

 

[Koya]

No, it really isn't

Honest question...Do you think I should constitutionally allowed to own a nuclear weapon?

You're hilarious.

I think what he's asking is what "arm" under the "right to bear arms" is too much? Unless you are ok with his statement then we are all agreeing there are some arms that private citizens shouldn't own. The question is then merely where the line is.

So I can "bear" a nuke now? You don't have to be so ####### outrageous.

OK, so we've established that there is a line...Where would you draw it?I am not trolling or inciting anything here, I am legitimately interested in the discussion

Obviously there is a difference in using an AR-15 to defend my family and using a nuke to defend them.

I think TU's point is... where then between Nuke and Handgun do we draw the line? But we need to draw a line somewhere.What are the parameters? For you, AR-15 is still good to go, but nukes aren't. The discussion then is that the proper cut off? Since we need some line of delineation.

 

[JHuber77]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

I've got a stock 9mm that carries 18 rounds. If I add a magazine extension, I could easily carry 20 rounds. This whole debate shouldn't just be about certain types of guns because any gun can kill quite a few people in a very short amount of time with the exception of any weapon produced before the 20th century.

Exactly. I could kill quite a few people with my bolt action internal magazine Nagant that was made in 1943. It doesn't take long to throw in another 5 rounds with a clip.

Holy c***! The first, and quite possibly only, correct use of the word "clip" on the Internet in the last 7 days!

I use an en bloc clip for my M1 garand. But you are correct. Many people here have no business talking about gun control because they know nothing about guns. If you do not own a gun or have ever fired a gun, stay out of this conversation.

 

[Mark Davis]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.

I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

So what? You don't see a need for it? Congrats?

OK, what "need" do you have for it? Or are you just wanting to drop pants and see who has the biggest given your tone?

First of all, 2nd amendment right. I don't have to show a need.

Second of all, multiple intruders, clearing my house, disaster situation, ec...

I am a strong proponent of individual rights. Including the right to bear arms.That said, to flippantly reply as if the 2nd amendment takes all possibility of a rational and truly openminded conversation about the matter out of the equation, then that's a sad statement.

Here we have terrible shooting after terrible shooting. Darn straight there is SOME need to show a need. Because eventually, if this goes unchecked, that 2nd amendment would become questionable whereas now most respect that right but want to find the right balance.

While it has been a while, let's not act like there is no ability to amend the constitution. These are laws of men that must be reviewed from time to time, not immutable truths.

Now, I do believe in the 2nd amendment. But we must now realize that the rights of non gun owners / innocents is becoming endangered - rights more important than say, the right to some arms (cause the right not to be shot by one for no reason trumps it). So, to preserve the 2nd amendment, we better have a real and open conversation about how to best interpret it in the modernity we live in.

These are not just any amendments. This is the Bill of Right we are talking about here.The foundation of our society and government.

Which is why I think it's in our interest to find a way to responsibly preserve 2nd amendment rights. Because the downside of risking more acts like Sandy Hook to occur is, obviously, the additional death and pain... but also an eventual necessity to drastically restrict the 2nd amendment as we know it.So, let's not be bull headed about this, and find something reasonable. If not, those who most want the 2nd amendment will see even more of it erode over time. And at great loss of life and community along the way. Sorry, but the whole concept of the ability to amend and have the constitution grow.

Now, the issues are completely different, but the 3/5 clause was not even in the bill of rights, but the text itself - and overturned by the 13th Amendment. So if the text itself can be amended, so can an amendment, including the Bill of Rights. Let's hope we can be reasonable enough not to need that and find other solutions that provide safety and rights for gun owners, non gun owners and innocents across the country who shouldn't be at risk of being killed because others want the right to certain guns, if indeed regulating some of those rights, without destroying the intent of the 2nd amendment, would save lives. And preserve gun rights that are, imo, such a critical component of the freedom we love in this nation.

But once again, my freedom to not be killed because of a poor gun policy trumps the rights of some who enjoy certain unfettered freedoms under those poor gun policies.

 

[Slingblade]

No, it really isn't

Honest question...Do you think I should constitutionally allowed to own a nuclear weapon?

You're hilarious.

I think what he's asking is what "arm" under the "right to bear arms" is too much? Unless you are ok with his statement then we are all agreeing there are some arms that private citizens shouldn't own. The question is then merely where the line is.

So I can "bear" a nuke now? You don't have to be so ####### outrageous.

OK, so we've established that there is a line...Where would you draw it?I am not trolling or inciting anything here, I am legitimately interested in the discussion

Sling, this is a very legit argument. I think we'd all agree that there shouldn't be a system that allows people to have nukes. Or say a loaded tank. Ground to rocket missles. Smaller missles. Live Grenades. Vehicle mounted large caliber guns. Heavy assult weapons. Assault weapons. Semi Automatics. Rifles. Handguns.It's a spectrum. Let's PLEASE have a legitimate conversation here. Where along that line is the 2nd amendment ok, and where is it not?That's part of what we need to discuss. It can't be all or nothing because I'll tell you, much as I am a huge fan of personal freedoms and rights, I surely don't want to live in a nation where everyone can have rocket launchers and nukes.

No one in the U.S. can own rockets or nukes. "Well regulated"...it's been regulated plenty. How far is it going to go? What's next after a mag restriction and AWB? Confiscation of all guns?The buck stops here. No more...not one inch of ground.

 

[Koya]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

I've got a stock 9mm that carries 18 rounds. If I add a magazine extension, I could easily carry 20 rounds. This whole debate shouldn't just be about certain types of guns because any gun can kill quite a few people in a very short amount of time with the exception of any weapon produced before the 20th century.

Exactly. I could kill quite a few people with my bolt action internal magazine Nagant that was made in 1943. It doesn't take long to throw in another 5 rounds with a clip.

Holy c***! The first, and quite possibly only, correct use of the word "clip" on the Internet in the last 7 days!

I use an en bloc clip for my M1 garand. But you are correct. Many people here have no business talking about gun control because they know nothing about guns. If you do not own a gun or have ever fired a gun, stay out of this conversation.

While I have fired a gun, I hardly know much about their safe use and specifics.But don't you dare say I have no right to be in this conversation... the fact is we are trying to balance rights here. Rights to own guns, and rights not to be threatened/hurt by them, if such an event could be prevented.Gun control is at least, and maybe more about those who don't own guns than those that do, but we all have an equal say in this discussion. Unless mass shootings will only occur to people who have owned or fired a gun.

 

[Henry Ford]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

I've got a stock 9mm that carries 18 rounds. If I add a magazine extension, I could easily carry 20 rounds. This whole debate shouldn't just be about certain types of guns because any gun can kill quite a few people in a very short amount of time with the exception of any weapon produced before the 20th century.

Exactly. I could kill quite a few people with my bolt action internal magazine Nagant that was made in 1943. It doesn't take long to throw in another 5 rounds with a clip.

Holy c***! The first, and quite possibly only, correct use of the word "clip" on the Internet in the last 7 days!

I use an en bloc clip for my M1 garand. But you are correct. Many people here have no business talking about gun control because they know nothing about guns. If you do not own a gun or have ever fired a gun, stay out of this conversation.

I feel the same way about heroin.

 

[Mark Davis]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

I've got a stock 9mm that carries 18 rounds. If I add a magazine extension, I could easily carry 20 rounds. This whole debate shouldn't just be about certain types of guns because any gun can kill quite a few people in a very short amount of time with the exception of any weapon produced before the 20th century.

Exactly. I could kill quite a few people with my bolt action internal magazine Nagant that was made in 1943. It doesn't take long to throw in another 5 rounds with a clip.

Holy c***! The first, and quite possibly only, correct use of the word "clip" on the Internet in the last 7 days!

I use an en bloc clip for my M1 garand. But you are correct. Many people here have no business talking about gun control because they know nothing about guns. If you do not own a gun or have ever fired a gun, stay out of this conversation.

My dad's weapon he carried in WWII was a garand. I don't think I've ever laid eyes on one in person.

 

[JHuber77]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

I've got a stock 9mm that carries 18 rounds. If I add a magazine extension, I could easily carry 20 rounds. This whole debate shouldn't just be about certain types of guns because any gun can kill quite a few people in a very short amount of time with the exception of any weapon produced before the 20th century.

Exactly. I could kill quite a few people with my bolt action internal magazine Nagant that was made in 1943. It doesn't take long to throw in another 5 rounds with a clip.

Holy c***! The first, and quite possibly only, correct use of the word "clip" on the Internet in the last 7 days!

I use an en bloc clip for my M1 garand. But you are correct. Many people here have no business talking about gun control because they know nothing about guns. If you do not own a gun or have ever fired a gun, stay out of this conversation.

While I have fired a gun, I hardly know much about their safe use and specifics.But don't you dare say I have no right to be in this conversation... the fact is we are trying to balance rights here. Rights to own guns, and rights not to be threatened/hurt by them, if such an event could be prevented.Gun control is at least, and maybe more about those who don't own guns than those that do, but we all have an equal say in this discussion. Unless mass shootings will only occur to people who have owned or fired a gun.

I was pointing out the fact that many people here say restrict high capacity magazines, etc, etc but know nothing about guns themselves. I get that people want their rights and want to be safe from such weapons. Its like going into the hospital and telling the surgeon how to perform surgery without knowing anything about surgery itself.