***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (6 Viewers)

[Mr Two Cents]

Do you seriously think I would have access to those figures, Google is your friend, I promise when I do my English thesis I will not use Google to make a point.

Yeah, links are hard. You have to put down a gun to add one.

See but when you put links down, people wont look at them (that is obvious in this thread) but if you put the words to read, they are more likely to read them. I can do a link one-handed see, My link

 

[cobalt_27]

So we're back to the argument that modest gun control ideas, such as a limitation on magazines and an end to the loopholes, should not be pursued because they might interfere with your ability to fight a guerilla war against the United States military? Good luck selling that one.

I am good with closing the loopholes, problem with the magazines. Fortunately there are millions of them out there now so you would not see the impact in your or your children's lives.Also you do know why all the major nations have Nuclear weapons right, it is not to have to use them but for mutually assured destruction, it is a deterrent to aggression. Just like weapons in the hands of civilians, it is not because we anticipate needing them to fight a guerrilla war but to make sure we don't ever have to. You seriously don't get this? Really.

Again, just so we're all 100% clear on what your position is, plagiarized or otherwise...you do support the philosophical position that the government should not intrude on your right to bear any arms, guns, rifles, semi-automatic, bazookas, missile launchers, rocket launchers, nukes, etc. Right. The right to bear arms is literal and not open to interpretation or any governmental restriction. If you have the money and access and means, it would be ok with you for Mr. Jones down the street to own a nuke.Do I have that right?Go look up your NRA response and be sure to link your references. If it's your own opinion, maybe for a while you should bold/highlight so that we know it's your own independent thought on the matter and not something you've plucked from your crazy nut house cult.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

So we're back to the argument that modest gun control ideas, such as a limitation on magazines and an end to the loopholes, should not be pursued because they might interfere with your ability to fight a guerilla war against the United States military? Good luck selling that one.

I am good with closing the loopholes, problem with the magazines. Fortunately there are millions of them out there now so you would not see the impact in your or your children's lives.Also you do know why all the major nations have Nuclear weapons right, it is not to have to use them but for mutually assured destruction, it is a deterrent to aggression. Just like weapons in the hands of civilians, it is not because we anticipate needing them to fight a guerrilla war but to make sure we don't ever have to. You seriously don't get this? Really.

Again, just so we're all 100% clear on what your position is, plagiarized or otherwise...you do support the philosophical position that the government should not intrude on your right to bear any arms, guns, rifles, semi-automatic, bazookas, missile launchers, rocket launchers, nukes, etc. Right. The right to bear arms is literal and not open to interpretation or any governmental restriction. If you have the money and access and means, it would be ok with you for Mr. Jones down the street to own a nuke.Do I have that right?Go look up your NRA response and be sure to link your references. If it's your own opinion, maybe for a while you should bold/highlight so that we know it's your own independent thought on the matter and not something you've plucked from your crazy nut house cult.

No you are being an idiot, but THAT is your right and I will defend it to the death.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

This is exactly why semi-automatics are so much more lethal in these mass shooting instances. I haven't seen any statistical data that suggests semi-automatic handguns are safer than revolvers in a household setting.

The Virginia Tech committee report determined that if he had revolvers with speed loaders it would have been just as deadly.

Not exactly. The committee found, in that particular situation, 10 round clips vs. 15 wouldn't have made much difference, and a revolver with speed loaders could have been about as deadly.

My point exactly.

This seems to be continually ignored. The term "Semi-automatic" gets thrown around with different meanings. With respect to preventing or reducing the mass shootings, can someone from the control side explain exactly where the line should be drawn? Exactly how many shots should you be allowed to fire before having to reload? At what point do you reduce the mass shootings without infringing on an individual's ability to defend themselves?

I personally think the line should be drawn at anything with a magazine. As I've said before, even if you take the gun lobby's own numbers on defensive uses of guns, they demonstrate that the vast majority of the time a gun is used for legitimate protection it isn't even fired once, let alone needing to be reloaded quickly or have high capacity to begin with. I certainly don't think that would stop every shooting but I think it would save lives in nearly every instance that someone sets out intent to kill a large number of people, without making a practical difference in the defensive and recreational uses.

Does that mean you're okay with a revolver but not with a pistol with a magazine? That doesn't make much sense. Or, are you suggesting only a single shot before reloading?

Yes, I would draw a distinction between double action revolvers and semi-automatic pistols. Revolvers typically hold 5-10 rounds, with 6 being the most common. There's no way to slap an extended capacity on them, so you can't turn a 6 shot revolver into a 30 round weapon just by swapping in a larger cylinder. Speed loaders, assuming someone has them, are nowhere near a substitute for the ease and quickness of reloading a semiautomatic handgun.

Again, nearly everyone agrees there is a line of reason where arms need to be regulated. To me, this is the clearest lines where guns move from meeting essentially all defensive and recreational needs, to simply enhancing the ability to kill quickly and in large numbers.

 

[cobalt_27]

So we're back to the argument that modest gun control ideas, such as a limitation on magazines and an end to the loopholes, should not be pursued because they might interfere with your ability to fight a guerilla war against the United States military? Good luck selling that one.

I am good with closing the loopholes, problem with the magazines. Fortunately there are millions of them out there now so you would not see the impact in your or your children's lives.Also you do know why all the major nations have Nuclear weapons right, it is not to have to use them but for mutually assured destruction, it is a deterrent to aggression. Just like weapons in the hands of civilians, it is not because we anticipate needing them to fight a guerrilla war but to make sure we don't ever have to. You seriously don't get this? Really.

Again, just so we're all 100% clear on what your position is, plagiarized or otherwise...you do support the philosophical position that the government should not intrude on your right to bear any arms, guns, rifles, semi-automatic, bazookas, missile launchers, rocket launchers, nukes, etc. Right. The right to bear arms is literal and not open to interpretation or any governmental restriction. If you have the money and access and means, it would be ok with you for Mr. Jones down the street to own a nuke.Do I have that right?Go look up your NRA response and be sure to link your references. If it's your own opinion, maybe for a while you should bold/highlight so that we know it's your own independent thought on the matter and not something you've plucked from your crazy nut house cult.

No you are being an idiot, but THAT is your right and I will defend it to the death.

So, you are not a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment?

 

[tom22406]

A buddy of mine was looking to move one of these and asked me if I wanted it or knew anyone else that wanted it.Looks pretty nasty

You betta watch out sucka!

Better get one now while I can?

 

[Glass Joe]

A buddy of mine was looking to move one of these and asked me if I wanted it or knew anyone else that wanted it.Looks pretty nasty

You betta watch out sucka!

Better get one now while I can?

Sure. Go get it...and know you won't get crap for it when you have to turn it in.

 

[tom22406]

A buddy of mine was looking to move one of these and asked me if I wanted it or knew anyone else that wanted it.Looks pretty nasty

You betta watch out sucka!

Better get one now while I can?

Sure. Go get it...and know you won't get crap for it when you have to turn it in.

He told me the price could triple if a ban goes into effect on these guns.

 

[Apple Jack]

I usually prefer a good buzz if I'm going to risk a felony, but that's just me.

 

[Cookiemonster]

A buddy of mine was looking to move one of these and asked me if I wanted it or knew anyone else that wanted it.Looks pretty nasty

You betta watch out sucka!

Better get one now while I can?

Sure. Go get it...and know you won't get crap for it when you have to turn it in.

I usually prefer a good buzz if I'm going to risk a felony, but that's just me.

Great point made!It's an airsoft gun!

 

[BustedKnuckles]

A buddy of mine was looking to move one of these and asked me if I wanted it or knew anyone else that wanted it.Looks pretty nasty

You betta watch out sucka!

Better get one now while I can?

Sure. Go get it...and know you won't get crap for it when you have to turn it in.

He told me the price could triple if a ban goes into effect on these guns.

You`re not helping your cause here

 

[tom22406]

A buddy of mine was looking to move one of these and asked me if I wanted it or knew anyone else that wanted it.Looks pretty nasty

You betta watch out sucka!

Better get one now while I can?

Sure. Go get it...and know you won't get crap for it when you have to turn it in.

He told me the price could triple if a ban goes into effect on these guns.

You`re not helping your cause here

I think it proved my point perfectly.

 

[timschochet]

I say this on behalf of our posterity, because I can foresee a future time when the Second Amendment might be misinterpreted to mean to some that any kind of weaponry to the private citizen shall be obtainable, and no regulation whatsoever from the State shall be enforced lest it be regarded as an infringement upon one's liberty- thus do I say in all candor to my descendants:

Hey you ####### crazy idiots! What the #### are you thinking? That is NOT what we meant. Do you understand what the words "well regulated" are supposed to be about??? Duhhh. ####### morons, all of you.

-John Adams, in an address to the Third Congress of the United States, 1801.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

A buddy of mine was looking to move one of these and asked me if I wanted it or knew anyone else that wanted it.Looks pretty nasty

You betta watch out sucka!

Better get one now while I can?

Sure. Go get it...and know you won't get crap for it when you have to turn it in.

He told me the price could triple if a ban goes into effect on these guns.

You`re not helping your cause here

I think it proved my point perfectly.

if your point was to look like a gun crazed lunatic who wants a gun that screams overkill than yes ,you did

 

[Apple Jack]

A buddy of mine was looking to move one of these and asked me if I wanted it or knew anyone else that wanted it.Looks pretty nasty

You betta watch out sucka!

Better get one now while I can?

Sure. Go get it...and know you won't get crap for it when you have to turn it in.

I usually prefer a good buzz if I'm going to risk a felony, but that's just me.

Great point made!It's an airsoft gun!

OMGLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!! It's a bb gun that...get this...looks like a real gun!!!!! OMG!!!! Boy howdy that's good stuff. Whew.

 

[Henry Ford]

The claim that an armed populace cannot successfully resist assault stems from an unproved theory.The twentieth century provides no example of a determined populace with access to small arms having been defeated by a modern army. The Russians lost in Afghanistan, the United States lost in Vietnam, and the French lost in Indo-China. In each case, it was the poorly armed populace that beat the "modern" army. In China, Cuba, and Nicaragua, the established leaders, Chiang Kai-shek, Battista, and Somoza lost. Modern nations like Algeria, Angola, Ireland, Israel, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe only exist because guerrilla warfare can triumph over modern armies. While we may not approve of all the resulting governments, each of these triumphs tells a simple truth: a determined people who have the means to maintain prolonged war against a modern army can battle it to a standstill, subverting major portions of the army or defeating it themselves or with major arms supplied by outside forces.The Founders’ purpose in guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms was not merely to overthrow tyrants. They saw the right to arms as crucial to what they believed was a prime natural right-self-defense.

There are plenty of examples of governments quelling armed rebellions from the populace. Even a determined populace. The usual difference is whether it's everybody or just a few people, not how many bushmasters they have.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

A buddy of mine was looking to move one of these and asked me if I wanted it or knew anyone else that wanted it.Looks pretty nasty

You betta watch out sucka!

Better get one now while I can?

Sure. Go get it...and know you won't get crap for it when you have to turn it in.

I usually prefer a good buzz if I'm going to risk a felony, but that's just me.

Great point made!It's an airsoft gun!

well ait ya`ll real clever like

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm having a hard time figuring out how the North Hollywood Shooters went back in time three or four years to get the feds to enact the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the assault weapons ban).

That was a whoops. On a couple different forums and got lines of thinking crossed. I'd also like to correct myself in the round count. 2000 total. 1100 by the criminals.

Does it change your opinion of the law at all thaat it absolutely was not enacted based on the premise that you thought was ridiculous and inappropriate?

Does it not make it more ridiculous and inappropriate that it was enacted purely on fear, prejudice and cosmetic features, not on preventing crime, violence and effective features? I think we would all feel better about their attempts if it were based off reaction to a Hollywood shootout, or Columbine or some other tragedy, not that it would change the ineffectiveness of such a policy. No, it was based off of what they thought the population wanted but instead was proven wrong resulting in a big turnover during the following elections. The same fear that the anti-gunners pushed through last time is being pushed again via CNN, CBS, NBC and the politicians themselves (Fast and Furious, anyone?). The fact that so few violent crimes are committed with rifles and such a small percentage of rifle crimes are committed with rifles having evil cosmetic features makes "assault weapons" bans a bureaucratic folly and financial (enforcement and legislative) and liberal (2nd amendment) mistake.

So... no, then? Whether this happened before or after the assault weapons ban doesn't make any difference to your way of thinking about the ban? I understand your thoughts on those weapons in general, but your being completely wrong about the motivation behind the ban doesn't change your thoughts at all?

 

[Henry Ford]

I wouldn't shoot you, we have the 1st amendment still

Please stop trying to understand the Bill of Rights. You're terrible at it.

 

[cobalt_27]

I wouldn't shoot you, we have the 1st amendment still

Please stop trying to understand the Bill of Rights. You're terrible at it.

I would prefer he try.

 

[Henry Ford]

I wouldn't shoot you, we have the 1st amendment still

Please stop trying to understand the Bill of Rights. You're terrible at it.

I would prefer he try.

He is trying. It's not working.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I'm having a hard time figuring out how the North Hollywood Shooters went back in time three or four years to get the feds to enact the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the assault weapons ban).

That was a whoops. On a couple different forums and got lines of thinking crossed. I'd also like to correct myself in the round count. 2000 total. 1100 by the criminals.

Does it change your opinion of the law at all thaat it absolutely was not enacted based on the premise that you thought was ridiculous and inappropriate?

Does it not make it more ridiculous and inappropriate that it was enacted purely on fear, prejudice and cosmetic features, not on preventing crime, violence and effective features? I think we would all feel better about their attempts if it were based off reaction to a Hollywood shootout, or Columbine or some other tragedy, not that it would change the ineffectiveness of such a policy. No, it was based off of what they thought the population wanted but instead was proven wrong resulting in a big turnover during the following elections. The same fear that the anti-gunners pushed through last time is being pushed again via CNN, CBS, NBC and the politicians themselves (Fast and Furious, anyone?). The fact that so few violent crimes are committed with rifles and such a small percentage of rifle crimes are committed with rifles having evil cosmetic features makes "assault weapons" bans a bureaucratic folly and financial (enforcement and legislative) and liberal (2nd amendment) mistake.

So... no, then? Whether this happened before or after the assault weapons ban doesn't make any difference to your way of thinking about the ban? I understand your thoughts on those weapons in general, but your being completely wrong about the motivation behind the ban doesn't change your thoughts at all?

What I think of the ban has nothing to do with why it was formed. I was in high school when the ban was put into effect. I didn't own my first gun until after it was lifted. All of my guns wouldn't have been subject to the ban, as I live in California and we still have to put up with Boxer and Feinstein's propaganda anyways. All my guns are registered and bought legally. My highest capacity gun is a .22 rifle that holds 14 in a tube. All others are already limited to 10 rounds or their max capacity. Would I own a high cap gun if I could? I don't know. I may have gotten a 16 round 9mm instead of a 10 round .45, but I can say that anything more than 10 or so rounds of .45 would get awfully heavy to carry on the belt all day. Probably not, unless you were talking about a 20 or 30 round magazine for our other .22 rifle, but that would be purely for plinking. Just because I don't feel the need to have an AR or AK or 33 round magazine for my Glock doesn't mean I feel it's necessary to make others adhere to my minimums.

 

[cobalt_27]

I wouldn't shoot you, we have the 1st amendment still

Please stop trying to understand the Bill of Rights. You're terrible at it.

I would prefer he try.

He is trying. It's not working.

He's certainly trying to advance an uneducated position. If he took some time to truly sit down, read the document, read the consultations and rationale that provided its context, he clearly would not be so misinformed. It may be that his bias will prevent him from being and educated discussing on this topic. But, I would hope he could at least give it an honest read.

 

[Cookiemonster]

A buddy of mine was looking to move one of these and asked me if I wanted it or knew anyone else that wanted it.Looks pretty nasty

You betta watch out sucka!

Better get one now while I can?

Sure. Go get it...and know you won't get crap for it when you have to turn it in.

He told me the price could triple if a ban goes into effect on these guns.

You`re not helping your cause here

I think it proved my point perfectly.

if your point was to look like a gun crazed lunatic who wants a gun that screams overkill than yes ,you did

Pretty sure his point was to make all of you paranoid, anti-gun crazed lunatics who want to ban all guns that look scary give him the responses he got by posting a picture of a toy. Turn it in, you baby killing future felon! How about all of those evil Ruger 10/22's? Most boys' 1st .22 rifle? Good. Bad. Difference? Black plastic.

 

[Slingblade]

I say this on behalf of our posterity, because I can foresee a future time when the Second Amendment might be misinterpreted to mean to some that any kind of weaponry to the private citizen shall be obtainable, and no regulation whatsoever from the State shall be enforced lest it be regarded as an infringement upon one's liberty- thus do I say in all candor to my descendants:

Hey you ####### crazy idiots! What the #### are you thinking? That is NOT what we meant. Do you understand what the words "well regulated" are supposed to be about??? Duhhh. ####### morons, all of you.

-John Adams, in an address to the Third Congress of the United States, 1801.

Is there a point to this stupidity?

 

[Slingblade]

This is exactly why semi-automatics are so much more lethal in these mass shooting instances. I haven't seen any statistical data that suggests semi-automatic handguns are safer than revolvers in a household setting.

The Virginia Tech committee report determined that if he had revolvers with speed loaders it would have been just as deadly.

Not exactly. The committee found, in that particular situation, 10 round clips vs. 15 wouldn't have made much difference, and a revolver with speed loaders could have been about as deadly.

My point exactly.

This seems to be continually ignored. The term "Semi-automatic" gets thrown around with different meanings. With respect to preventing or reducing the mass shootings, can someone from the control side explain exactly where the line should be drawn? Exactly how many shots should you be allowed to fire before having to reload? At what point do you reduce the mass shootings without infringing on an individual's ability to defend themselves?

I personally think the line should be drawn at anything with a magazine. As I've said before, even if you take the gun lobby's own numbers on defensive uses of guns, they demonstrate that the vast majority of the time a gun is used for legitimate protection it isn't even fired once, let alone needing to be reloaded quickly or have high capacity to begin with. I certainly don't think that would stop every shooting but I think it would save lives in nearly every instance that someone sets out intent to kill a large number of people, without making a practical difference in the defensive and recreational uses.

Does that mean you're okay with a revolver but not with a pistol with a magazine? That doesn't make much sense. Or, are you suggesting only a single shot before reloading?

Yes, I would draw a distinction between double action revolvers and semi-automatic pistols. Revolvers typically hold 5-10 rounds, with 6 being the most common. There's no way to slap an extended capacity on them, so you can't turn a 6 shot revolver into a 30 round weapon just by swapping in a larger cylinder. Speed loaders, assuming someone has them, are nowhere near a substitute for the ease and quickness of reloading a semiautomatic handgun.

Again, nearly everyone agrees there is a line of reason where arms need to be regulated. To me, this is the clearest lines where guns move from meeting essentially all defensive and recreational needs, to simply enhancing the ability to kill quickly and in large numbers.

Really?

Link

ETA: Direct link does not want to work. See first video in listing.

 

[Hoosier16]

This is exactly why semi-automatics are so much more lethal in these mass shooting instances. I haven't seen any statistical data that suggests semi-automatic handguns are safer than revolvers in a household setting.

The Virginia Tech committee report determined that if he had revolvers with speed loaders it would have been just as deadly.

Not exactly. The committee found, in that particular situation, 10 round clips vs. 15 wouldn't have made much difference, and a revolver with speed loaders could have been about as deadly.

My point exactly.

This seems to be continually ignored. The term "Semi-automatic" gets thrown around with different meanings. With respect to preventing or reducing the mass shootings, can someone from the control side explain exactly where the line should be drawn? Exactly how many shots should you be allowed to fire before having to reload? At what point do you reduce the mass shootings without infringing on an individual's ability to defend themselves?

I personally think the line should be drawn at anything with a magazine. As I've said before, even if you take the gun lobby's own numbers on defensive uses of guns, they demonstrate that the vast majority of the time a gun is used for legitimate protection it isn't even fired once, let alone needing to be reloaded quickly or have high capacity to begin with. I certainly don't think that would stop every shooting but I think it would save lives in nearly every instance that someone sets out intent to kill a large number of people, without making a practical difference in the defensive and recreational uses.

Does that mean you're okay with a revolver but not with a pistol with a magazine? That doesn't make much sense. Or, are you suggesting only a single shot before reloading?

Yes, I would draw a distinction between double action revolvers and semi-automatic pistols. Revolvers typically hold 5-10 rounds, with 6 being the most common. There's no way to slap an extended capacity on them, so you can't turn a 6 shot revolver into a 30 round weapon just by swapping in a larger cylinder. Speed loaders, assuming someone has them, are nowhere near a substitute for the ease and quickness of reloading a semiautomatic handgun.

Again, nearly everyone agrees there is a line of reason where arms need to be regulated. To me, this is the clearest lines where guns move from meeting essentially all defensive and recreational needs, to simply enhancing the ability to kill quickly and in large numbers.

I don't see much distinction.I'm not sure what you mean by your second paragraph, but speed loaders are quite common and very easy to use. They cost around $10-$15, or about half the cost of spare magazines. Here is a short video of a guy using a speed loader. As you can see, he gets off 12 shots in 6 seconds - 2 seconds to fire the first set, 2 seconds to reload, and another 2 seconds to fire again. At that pace, there isn't any reason that someone couldn't fire nearly 100 shots in a minute.

Do you really think that has reduced the ability to kill quickly and in large numbers?

ETA: The link doesn't seem to be working. Google "Revolver Reload with Speed Loaders". First one.

 

[Henry Ford]

This is exactly why semi-automatics are so much more lethal in these mass shooting instances. I haven't seen any statistical data that suggests semi-automatic handguns are safer than revolvers in a household setting.

The Virginia Tech committee report determined that if he had revolvers with speed loaders it would have been just as deadly.

Not exactly. The committee found, in that particular situation, 10 round clips vs. 15 wouldn't have made much difference, and a revolver with speed loaders could have been about as deadly.

My point exactly.

This seems to be continually ignored. The term "Semi-automatic" gets thrown around with different meanings. With respect to preventing or reducing the mass shootings, can someone from the control side explain exactly where the line should be drawn? Exactly how many shots should you be allowed to fire before having to reload? At what point do you reduce the mass shootings without infringing on an individual's ability to defend themselves?

I personally think the line should be drawn at anything with a magazine. As I've said before, even if you take the gun lobby's own numbers on defensive uses of guns, they demonstrate that the vast majority of the time a gun is used for legitimate protection it isn't even fired once, let alone needing to be reloaded quickly or have high capacity to begin with. I certainly don't think that would stop every shooting but I think it would save lives in nearly every instance that someone sets out intent to kill a large number of people, without making a practical difference in the defensive and recreational uses.

Does that mean you're okay with a revolver but not with a pistol with a magazine? That doesn't make much sense. Or, are you suggesting only a single shot before reloading?

Yes, I would draw a distinction between double action revolvers and semi-automatic pistols. Revolvers typically hold 5-10 rounds, with 6 being the most common. There's no way to slap an extended capacity on them, so you can't turn a 6 shot revolver into a 30 round weapon just by swapping in a larger cylinder. Speed loaders, assuming someone has them, are nowhere near a substitute for the ease and quickness of reloading a semiautomatic handgun.

Again, nearly everyone agrees there is a line of reason where arms need to be regulated. To me, this is the clearest lines where guns move from meeting essentially all defensive and recreational needs, to simply enhancing the ability to kill quickly and in large numbers.

I don't see much distinction.I'm not sure what you mean by your second paragraph, but speed loaders are quite common and very easy to use. They cost around $10-$15, or about half the cost of spare magazines. Here is a short video of a guy using a speed loader. As you can see, he gets off 12 shots in 6 seconds - 2 seconds to fire the first set, 2 seconds to reload, and another 2 seconds to fire again. At that pace, there isn't any reason that someone couldn't fire nearly 100 shots in a minute.

Do you really think that has reduced the ability to kill quickly and in large numbers?

ETA: The link doesn't seem to be working. Google "Revolver Reload with Speed Loaders". First one.

If it takes 2 seconds to fire 6 shots and 2 seconds to reload, how many shots would occur in 8 seconds with a revolver? How many with a 30- round magazine?

 

[Slingblade]

This is exactly why semi-automatics are so much more lethal in these mass shooting instances. I haven't seen any statistical data that suggests semi-automatic handguns are safer than revolvers in a household setting.

The Virginia Tech committee report determined that if he had revolvers with speed loaders it would have been just as deadly.

Not exactly. The committee found, in that particular situation, 10 round clips vs. 15 wouldn't have made much difference, and a revolver with speed loaders could have been about as deadly.

My point exactly.

This seems to be continually ignored. The term "Semi-automatic" gets thrown around with different meanings. With respect to preventing or reducing the mass shootings, can someone from the control side explain exactly where the line should be drawn? Exactly how many shots should you be allowed to fire before having to reload? At what point do you reduce the mass shootings without infringing on an individual's ability to defend themselves?

I personally think the line should be drawn at anything with a magazine. As I've said before, even if you take the gun lobby's own numbers on defensive uses of guns, they demonstrate that the vast majority of the time a gun is used for legitimate protection it isn't even fired once, let alone needing to be reloaded quickly or have high capacity to begin with. I certainly don't think that would stop every shooting but I think it would save lives in nearly every instance that someone sets out intent to kill a large number of people, without making a practical difference in the defensive and recreational uses.

Does that mean you're okay with a revolver but not with a pistol with a magazine? That doesn't make much sense. Or, are you suggesting only a single shot before reloading?

Yes, I would draw a distinction between double action revolvers and semi-automatic pistols. Revolvers typically hold 5-10 rounds, with 6 being the most common. There's no way to slap an extended capacity on them, so you can't turn a 6 shot revolver into a 30 round weapon just by swapping in a larger cylinder. Speed loaders, assuming someone has them, are nowhere near a substitute for the ease and quickness of reloading a semiautomatic handgun.

Again, nearly everyone agrees there is a line of reason where arms need to be regulated. To me, this is the clearest lines where guns move from meeting essentially all defensive and recreational needs, to simply enhancing the ability to kill quickly and in large numbers.

I don't see much distinction.I'm not sure what you mean by your second paragraph, but speed loaders are quite common and very easy to use. They cost around $10-$15, or about half the cost of spare magazines. Here is a short video of a guy using a speed loader. As you can see, he gets off 12 shots in 6 seconds - 2 seconds to fire the first set, 2 seconds to reload, and another 2 seconds to fire again. At that pace, there isn't any reason that someone couldn't fire nearly 100 shots in a minute.

Do you really think that has reduced the ability to kill quickly and in large numbers?

ETA: The link doesn't seem to be working. Google "Revolver Reload with Speed Loaders". First one.

If it takes 2 seconds to fire 6 shots and 2 seconds to reload, how many shots would occur in 8 seconds with a revolver? How many with a 30- round magazine?

The funny part about your bull#### argument is that more people die from revolvers and standard cap semi-autos than rifles.You want to base this mag cap ban because of extremely rare anomalies.

 

[timschochet]

I say this on behalf of our posterity, because I can foresee a future time when the Second Amendment might be misinterpreted to mean to some that any kind of weaponry to the private citizen shall be obtainable, and no regulation whatsoever from the State shall be enforced lest it be regarded as an infringement upon one's liberty- thus do I say in all candor to my descendants:

Hey you ####### crazy idiots! What the #### are you thinking? That is NOT what we meant. Do you understand what the words "well regulated" are supposed to be about??? Duhhh. ####### morons, all of you.

-John Adams, in an address to the Third Congress of the United States, 1801.

Is there a point to this stupidity?

Yes. The point is to mock you.

 

[Slingblade]

I say this on behalf of our posterity, because I can foresee a future time when the Second Amendment might be misinterpreted to mean to some that any kind of weaponry to the private citizen shall be obtainable, and no regulation whatsoever from the State shall be enforced lest it be regarded as an infringement upon one's liberty- thus do I say in all candor to my descendants:

Hey you ####### crazy idiots! What the #### are you thinking? That is NOT what we meant. Do you understand what the words "well regulated" are supposed to be about??? Duhhh. ####### morons, all of you.

-John Adams, in an address to the Third Congress of the United States, 1801.

Is there a point to this stupidity?

Yes. The point is to mock you.

Typical liberal elitist....

 

[Cookiemonster]

SCOTUS sees it his way.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

The Supreme Court held:[43]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

© The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.



(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.



(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.[44]

 

[Otis]

Why would you have guns and not have them loaded? Typically I have a 9mm loaded. but not chambered at one end of the house, out of sight but not out of reach. I have a loaded semi-automatic 20ga shotgun at the bedroom end of the house, loaded, chambered with the safety on and my Judge (revolver) in whatever part of the house that I happen to be in and yes if I am outside it is handy but not visible. When ever I leave the house the Judge is in a little glove box holder that sits in front of the passenger seat. It is left open but can be closed with the push of a button. It does not bother my wife sitting there right in front of her.Right now I am sitting here in my Man Cave with my Judge sitting on my computer desk. I also have 3 small dogs that let me know if someone is walking up the driveway or in the back yard. I do not go to the front door without the Judge in my hand. Family is used to me opening the front door (window on top) with a gun in my right hand. It is not an issue nor is it a threat or dangerous.I do not live in a "dangerous" neighbor hood but my neighbors are not what I am concerned about. Car Jackings and Home Invasions are very real in today's society. It is just a fact and I would rather be prepared than a victim.

Good lord.

Batcrap insane.America 2012. #### YEAH!!!

How are you not banned on these forums yet?The fact that someone thinks differently than you means they are "batcrap insane"? Typically SOP for progressives like yourself. Good thing we have a written constitution to prevent knee-jerk, drama queens like yourself from screwing everyone else over.You can go back to your safe area under the kitchen table now.

He answers the door with a gun in his hand and you think this is totally normal behavior?

 

[Otis]

This is exactly why semi-automatics are so much more lethal in these mass shooting instances. I haven't seen any statistical data that suggests semi-automatic handguns are safer than revolvers in a household setting.

The Virginia Tech committee report determined that if he had revolvers with speed loaders it would have been just as deadly.

Not exactly. The committee found, in that particular situation, 10 round clips vs. 15 wouldn't have made much difference, and a revolver with speed loaders could have been about as deadly.

My point exactly.

This seems to be continually ignored. The term "Semi-automatic" gets thrown around with different meanings. With respect to preventing or reducing the mass shootings, can someone from the control side explain exactly where the line should be drawn? Exactly how many shots should you be allowed to fire before having to reload? At what point do you reduce the mass shootings without infringing on an individual's ability to defend themselves?

One shot before reloading.

And that doesn't infringe on your ability to defend?

In how many defensive shootouts is the defending party really stuck in a tough spot because they have to reload?You people understand that Hollywood movies aren't real, right?

 

[Otis]

The claim that an armed populace cannot successfully resist assault stems from an unproved theory.

The twentieth century provides no example of a determined populace with access to small arms having been defeated by a modern army. The Russians lost in Afghanistan, the United States lost in Vietnam, and the French lost in Indo-China. In each case, it was the poorly armed populace that beat the "modern" army. In China, Cuba, and Nicaragua, the established leaders, Chiang Kai-shek, Battista, and Somoza lost. Modern nations like Algeria, Angola, Ireland, Israel, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe only exist because guerrilla warfare can triumph over modern armies. While we may not approve of all the resulting governments, each of these triumphs tells a simple truth: a determined people who have the means to maintain prolonged war against a modern army can battle it to a standstill, subverting major portions of the army or defeating it themselves or with major arms supplied by outside forces.

Don't shoot me for saying this, but you should probably post a link instead of pretending those are your words.link

"The twentieth century provides no example of a determined populace with access to small arms having been defeated by a modern army. The Russians lost in Afghanistan, the United States lost in Vietnam, and the French lost in Indo-China. In each case, it was the poorly armed populace that beat the 'modern' army. In China, Cuba, and Nicaragua, the established leaders, Chiang Kai-shek, Battista, and Somoza lost. Modern nations like Algeria, Angola, Ireland, Israel, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe only exist because guerrilla warfare can triumph over modern armies. While we may not approve of all the resulting governments, each of these triumphs tells a simple truth: a determined people who have the means to maintain prolonged war against a modern army can battle it to a standstill ..." (Guns, Crime, and Freedom, Op. cit.)

Owned.

 

[Otis]

I'm stunned that grown men in modern day America as a matter of course answer the door with a loaded gun in their hands. Talk about delusional/paranoid. You're either paranoid, or scared, or you're delusional about how much people care about you or your stuff. It's completely nuts.

 

[Cookiemonster]

In how many defensive shootouts is the defending party really stuck in a tough spot because they have to reload?You people understand that Hollywood movies aren't real, right?

True. The good guys don't always hit with every shot and the bad guys don't always miss. When people (other than the hero) are hit with a bullet, they don't fly 10 feet backwards and die instantly. The bad guys also don't always take turns attacking.I've never heard of someone who survived a defensive shooting say, "I only wish I had carried fewer rounds."

 

[Glass Joe]

In how many defensive shootouts is the defending party really stuck in a tough spot because they have to reload?You people understand that Hollywood movies aren't real, right?

True. The good guys don't always hit with every shot and the bad guys don't always miss. When people (other than the hero) are hit with a bullet, they don't fly 10 feet backwards and die instantly. The bad guys also don't always take turns attacking.I've never heard of someone who survived a defensive shooting say, "I only wish I had carried fewer rounds."

Honest question - how often does a home invasion get repelled by a multi-bullet shoot out?

 

[Hoosier16]

This is exactly why semi-automatics are so much more lethal in these mass shooting instances. I haven't seen any statistical data that suggests semi-automatic handguns are safer than revolvers in a household setting.

The Virginia Tech committee report determined that if he had revolvers with speed loaders it would have been just as deadly.

Not exactly. The committee found, in that particular situation, 10 round clips vs. 15 wouldn't have made much difference, and a revolver with speed loaders could have been about as deadly.

My point exactly.

This seems to be continually ignored. The term "Semi-automatic" gets thrown around with different meanings. With respect to preventing or reducing the mass shootings, can someone from the control side explain exactly where the line should be drawn? Exactly how many shots should you be allowed to fire before having to reload? At what point do you reduce the mass shootings without infringing on an individual's ability to defend themselves?

I personally think the line should be drawn at anything with a magazine. As I've said before, even if you take the gun lobby's own numbers on defensive uses of guns, they demonstrate that the vast majority of the time a gun is used for legitimate protection it isn't even fired once, let alone needing to be reloaded quickly or have high capacity to begin with. I certainly don't think that would stop every shooting but I think it would save lives in nearly every instance that someone sets out intent to kill a large number of people, without making a practical difference in the defensive and recreational uses.

Does that mean you're okay with a revolver but not with a pistol with a magazine? That doesn't make much sense. Or, are you suggesting only a single shot before reloading?

Yes, I would draw a distinction between double action revolvers and semi-automatic pistols. Revolvers typically hold 5-10 rounds, with 6 being the most common. There's no way to slap an extended capacity on them, so you can't turn a 6 shot revolver into a 30 round weapon just by swapping in a larger cylinder. Speed loaders, assuming someone has them, are nowhere near a substitute for the ease and quickness of reloading a semiautomatic handgun.

Again, nearly everyone agrees there is a line of reason where arms need to be regulated. To me, this is the clearest lines where guns move from meeting essentially all defensive and recreational needs, to simply enhancing the ability to kill quickly and in large numbers.

I don't see much distinction.I'm not sure what you mean by your second paragraph, but speed loaders are quite common and very easy to use. They cost around $10-$15, or about half the cost of spare magazines. Here is a short video of a guy using a speed loader. As you can see, he gets off 12 shots in 6 seconds - 2 seconds to fire the first set, 2 seconds to reload, and another 2 seconds to fire again. At that pace, there isn't any reason that someone couldn't fire nearly 100 shots in a minute.

Do you really think that has reduced the ability to kill quickly and in large numbers?

ETA: The link doesn't seem to be working. Google "Revolver Reload with Speed Loaders". First one.

If it takes 2 seconds to fire 6 shots and 2 seconds to reload, how many shots would occur in 8 seconds with a revolver? How many with a 30- round magazine?

Well, I'm not sure what the point of this is going to be but I'll play along. Let's extend it out to 1 minute though, because the police probably aren't going to arrive in 8 seconds. Let's also assume it takes the same amount of time to pull the trigger with each gun.With a revolver, you'll have 15 sets of shooting and 14 reloads in that minute for a total of 90 shots.

With a gun with 30 round magazines, it will take 10 seconds to empty a magazine and 2 seconds to reload. So you'll go through 5 magazines in the same minute, for a total of 150 shots.

So, again I'll ask, have you really reduced the ability to kill quickly and in large numbers?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

In how many defensive shootouts is the defending party really stuck in a tough spot because they have to reload?

You people understand that Hollywood movies aren't real, right?

But think of that 1 life you can save by not banning them.sound familiar?

 

[Hoosier16]

In how many defensive shootouts is the defending party really stuck in a tough spot because they have to reload?You people understand that Hollywood movies aren't real, right?

True. The good guys don't always hit with every shot and the bad guys don't always miss. When people (other than the hero) are hit with a bullet, they don't fly 10 feet backwards and die instantly. The bad guys also don't always take turns attacking.I've never heard of someone who survived a defensive shooting say, "I only wish I had carried fewer rounds."

Honest question - how often does a home invasion get repelled by a multi-bullet shoot out?

I don't know the stats but with a quick search, it was easy to find one. I'm sure this guy was glad he wasn't limited to a single shot.http://www.news10.net/news/article/222195/2/1-dead-in-Sacramento-home-invasion

 

[Slingblade]

In how many defensive shootouts is the defending party really stuck in a tough spot because they have to reload?You people understand that Hollywood movies aren't real, right?

True. The good guys don't always hit with every shot and the bad guys don't always miss. When people (other than the hero) are hit with a bullet, they don't fly 10 feet backwards and die instantly. The bad guys also don't always take turns attacking.I've never heard of someone who survived a defensive shooting say, "I only wish I had carried fewer rounds."

Honest question - how often does a home invasion get repelled by a multi-bullet shoot out?

http://www.news10.net/news/article/222195/2/1-dead-in-Sacramento-home-invasionJust the other day...And in California to top it off. How did these guys get guns? How's that for gun control and limits on "hi-cap" mags?

 

[Apple Jack]

Speed loading should be about getting everybody a bong hit before going back inside for the second half of the intermural basketball game in college, not how many bullets can I load and fire in the 1 in a brazillion chance I find myself in a firefight. You people truly are special. I can't imagine how many other ways this fear manifests itself, but it can't be an enjoyable way to experience life.

 

[Slingblade]

Speed loading should be about getting everybody a bong hit before going back inside for the second half of the intermural basketball game in college, not how many bullets can I load and fire in the 1 in a brazillion chance I find myself in a firefight. You people truly are special. I can't imagine how many other ways this fear manifests itself, but it can't be an enjoyable way to experience life.

I love this condescending elitist bull####.

 

[Otis]

In how many defensive shootouts is the defending party really stuck in a tough spot because they have to reload?You people understand that Hollywood movies aren't real, right?

True. The good guys don't always hit with every shot and the bad guys don't always miss. When people (other than the hero) are hit with a bullet, they don't fly 10 feet backwards and die instantly. The bad guys also don't always take turns attacking.I've never heard of someone who survived a defensive shooting say, "I only wish I had carried fewer rounds."

Have you ever heard them say, after a home invasion for example, "damn if only I'd had an automatic weapon, things would have ended much better."

 

[Otis]

In how many defensive shootouts is the defending party really stuck in a tough spot because they have to reload?You people understand that Hollywood movies aren't real, right?

True. The good guys don't always hit with every shot and the bad guys don't always miss. When people (other than the hero) are hit with a bullet, they don't fly 10 feet backwards and die instantly. The bad guys also don't always take turns attacking.I've never heard of someone who survived a defensive shooting say, "I only wish I had carried fewer rounds."

Honest question - how often does a home invasion get repelled by a multi-bullet shoot out?

Exactly. Do these guys expect that DIE HARD breaks out if the home owner has a weapon?

 

[Otis]

In how many defensive shootouts is the defending party really stuck in a tough spot because they have to reload?

You people understand that Hollywood movies aren't real, right?

But think of that 1 life you can save by not banning them.sound familiar?

No.

 

[Otis]

Speed loading should be about getting everybody a bong hit before going back inside for the second half of the intermural basketball game in college, not how many bullets can I load and fire in the 1 in a brazillion chance I find myself in a firefight. You people truly are special. I can't imagine how many other ways this fear manifests itself, but it can't be an enjoyable way to experience life.

I love this condescending elitist bull####.

He's right. It must be a sad existence.

 

[Glass Joe]

In how many defensive shootouts is the defending party really stuck in a tough spot because they have to reload?

You people understand that Hollywood movies aren't real, right?

But think of that 1 life you can save by not banning them.sound familiar?

WTH??? No.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

This is exactly why semi-automatics are so much more lethal in these mass shooting instances. I haven't seen any statistical data that suggests semi-automatic handguns are safer than revolvers in a household setting.

The Virginia Tech committee report determined that if he had revolvers with speed loaders it would have been just as deadly.

Not exactly. The committee found, in that particular situation, 10 round clips vs. 15 wouldn't have made much difference, and a revolver with speed loaders could have been about as deadly.

My point exactly.

This seems to be continually ignored. The term "Semi-automatic" gets thrown around with different meanings. With respect to preventing or reducing the mass shootings, can someone from the control side explain exactly where the line should be drawn? Exactly how many shots should you be allowed to fire before having to reload? At what point do you reduce the mass shootings without infringing on an individual's ability to defend themselves?

I personally think the line should be drawn at anything with a magazine. As I've said before, even if you take the gun lobby's own numbers on defensive uses of guns, they demonstrate that the vast majority of the time a gun is used for legitimate protection it isn't even fired once, let alone needing to be reloaded quickly or have high capacity to begin with. I certainly don't think that would stop every shooting but I think it would save lives in nearly every instance that someone sets out intent to kill a large number of people, without making a practical difference in the defensive and recreational uses.

Does that mean you're okay with a revolver but not with a pistol with a magazine? That doesn't make much sense. Or, are you suggesting only a single shot before reloading?

Yes, I would draw a distinction between double action revolvers and semi-automatic pistols. Revolvers typically hold 5-10 rounds, with 6 being the most common. There's no way to slap an extended capacity on them, so you can't turn a 6 shot revolver into a 30 round weapon just by swapping in a larger cylinder. Speed loaders, assuming someone has them, are nowhere near a substitute for the ease and quickness of reloading a semiautomatic handgun.

Again, nearly everyone agrees there is a line of reason where arms need to be regulated. To me, this is the clearest lines where guns move from meeting essentially all defensive and recreational needs, to simply enhancing the ability to kill quickly and in large numbers.

I don't see much distinction.I'm not sure what you mean by your second paragraph, but speed loaders are quite common and very easy to use. They cost around $10-$15, or about half the cost of spare magazines. Here is a short video of a guy using a speed loader. As you can see, he gets off 12 shots in 6 seconds - 2 seconds to fire the first set, 2 seconds to reload, and another 2 seconds to fire again. At that pace, there isn't any reason that someone couldn't fire nearly 100 shots in a minute.

Do you really think that has reduced the ability to kill quickly and in large numbers?

ETA: The link doesn't seem to be working. Google "Revolver Reload with Speed Loaders". First one.

I've seen specialists/trick shooters doing fast reloads with revolvers and otherwise. Just because a specialty skill like that can be done, doesn't mean it can be mastered by the typical psycho who's prone to go out and try to kill mass numbers of people. If it was that easy, the high cap magazines would probably never have been conceived in the first place, since their only purpose is to allow for longer continuous fire without reloading.