***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (2 Viewers)

[Apple Jack]

You are a coward. Actually...That's being a little harsh on cowards. I don't even know what you call your extreme cowardliness.

Do you think that killing somebody else makes you brave?

I think protecting my family from men who mean them harm makes me brave.

This.

And you think the safest way to do that is to stay and engage the person/people directly, rather than getting out of the way as quickly as possible? Who wouldn't be proud to have a dead Darwin award recipient for a father! Coward vs. brave is an embarrassing way to frame something this serious. The name of the game is keeping your family and you safe, not looking tough. If you think the best way to do that is to engage them in a shoot-out, sending bullets flying all about your family, then my thoughts are with your family should that hypothetic ever happen. Which obviously it won't.

 

[timschochet]

So no big surprises today- the key will be what Congress does. However they should consider the following: according to Gallup, 88% of the public approves closing the private sales loophole. 60% of the public approves limiting high cap magazines. But less than 50% of the public approves of a new ban on assault weapons.The message is clear: if Congress wants even a chance to get this stuff done, they should throw out all talk of banning new weapons, and stick to the 2 issues which are popular: close the loophole and ban the magazines. If we stick to this, we have a chance of success.

 

[Slingblade]

You are a coward. Actually...That's being a little harsh on cowards. I don't even know what you call your extreme cowardliness.

Do you think that killing somebody else makes you brave?

I think protecting my family from men who mean them harm makes me brave.

This.

And you think the safest way to do that is to stay and engage the person/people directly, rather than getting out of the way as quickly as possible? Who wouldn't be proud to have a dead Darwin award recipient for a father! Coward vs. brave is an embarrassing way to frame something this serious. The name of the game is keeping your family and you safe, not looking tough. If you think the best way to do that is to engage them in a shoot-out, sending bullets flying all about your family, then my thoughts are with your family should that hypothetic ever happen. Which obviously it won't.

I live in quite a large house with family members on the other side. No, I'm not going to run like a coward, like you. I will engage the target and eliminate the threat.

 

[timschochet]

That's a whole lotta nuthin'.

No, it isn't nothing. He just dealt a harsh blow to mental health in America. Now that psychiatrists have been turned into snitches who is going to go to one? Never in my life will I ever visit a mental health practitioner. The risk of obtaining a label that can never be washed off is now omnipresent.

If this were in any way true, it would seriously bother me as well. But I can find anything in the description of the executive orders that comes close to this interpretation. The only thing that even touches upon it is an affirmation that Obamacare would not restrict doctors from reporting threats of violence to the authorities, and I would think that would be warranted.So please explain how you justify the comments that you made.

Psychiatrists are already mandated to report specific threats to the police. For a long time, actually.

That;s my point. So I have no clue as to what Sand is talking about.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

That's a whole lotta nuthin'.

No, it isn't nothing. He just dealt a harsh blow to mental health in America. Now that psychiatrists have been turned into snitches who is going to go to one? Never in my life will I ever visit a mental health practitioner. The risk of obtaining a label that can never be washed off is now omnipresent.

If this were in any way true, it would seriously bother me as well. But I can find anything in the description of the executive orders that comes close to this interpretation. The only thing that even touches upon it is an affirmation that Obamacare would not restrict doctors from reporting threats of violence to the authorities, and I would think that would be warranted.So please explain how you justify the comments that you made.

True. lawsuit details

 

[Slingblade]

Remembered the word I was looking for instead of coward. Craven.

 

[badmojo1006]

You are a coward. Actually...That's being a little harsh on cowards. I don't even know what you call your extreme cowardliness.

Do you think that killing somebody else makes you brave?

I think protecting my family from men who mean them harm makes me brave.

This.

And you think the safest way to do that is to stay and engage the person/people directly, rather than getting out of the way as quickly as possible? Who wouldn't be proud to have a dead Darwin award recipient for a father! Coward vs. brave is an embarrassing way to frame something this serious. The name of the game is keeping your family and you safe, not looking tough. If you think the best way to do that is to engage them in a shoot-out, sending bullets flying all about your family, then my thoughts are with your family should that hypothetic ever happen. Which obviously it won't.

I live in quite a large house with family members on the other side. No, I'm not going to run like a coward, like you. I will engage the target and eliminate the threat.

Slingblade, he has the biggest balls of all FBG

 

[Apple Jack]

You are a coward. Actually...That's being a little harsh on cowards. I don't even know what you call your extreme cowardliness.

Do you think that killing somebody else makes you brave?

I think protecting my family from men who mean them harm makes me brave.

This.

And you think the safest way to do that is to stay and engage the person/people directly, rather than getting out of the way as quickly as possible? Who wouldn't be proud to have a dead Darwin award recipient for a father! Coward vs. brave is an embarrassing way to frame something this serious. The name of the game is keeping your family and you safe, not looking tough. If you think the best way to do that is to engage them in a shoot-out, sending bullets flying all about your family, then my thoughts are with your family should that hypothetic ever happen. Which obviously it won't.

I live in quite a large house with family members on the other side. No, I'm not going to run like a coward, like you. I will engage the target and eliminate the threat.

Go on with your bad self.

 

[timschochet]

Slingblade, would you do us a favor and just stay out of this discussion? We get your point of view; there are plenty of people here who express your POV far better than you do, and they manage to do so without throwing constant insults at everyone who disagrees with them, and without your general unpleasantness.Based on the way you throw around words like "moron" and "coward", I suspect you're not very bright. That's nothing to be ashamed about. You can learn and improve yourself. Perhaps if you take the time and effort and truly educate yourself, someday you'll provide something of value to this forum. Unfortunately, that day has not yet arrived.

 

[badmojo1006]

Slingblade, would you do us a favor and just stay out of this discussion? We get your point of view; there are plenty of people here who express your POV far better than you do, and they manage to do so without throwing constant insults at everyone who disagrees with them, and without your general unpleasantness.Based on the way you throw around words like "moron" and "coward", I suspect you're not very bright. That's nothing to be ashamed about. You can learn and improve yourself. Perhaps if you take the time and effort and truly educate yourself, someday you'll provide something of value to this forum. Unfortunately, that day has not yet arrived.

Oh no you dint!

 

[jonboltz]

That's a whole lotta nuthin'.

No, it isn't nothing. He just dealt a harsh blow to mental health in America. Now that psychiatrists have been turned into snitches who is going to go to one? Never in my life will I ever visit a mental health practitioner. The risk of obtaining a label that can never be washed off is now omnipresent.

If this were in any way true, it would seriously bother me as well. But I can find anything in the description of the executive orders that comes close to this interpretation. The only thing that even touches upon it is an affirmation that Obamacare would not restrict doctors from reporting threats of violence to the authorities, and I would think that would be warranted.So please explain how you justify the comments that you made.

True. lawsuit details

It is likely the case that the psychiatrist will be found to have done her ethical duty, due to Holmes 1) not being an immediate risk of danger to himself or others; and 2) not having a specific threat (i.e. general fantasies about killing others does not fall under a 'duty to warn', as their is no specific person to warn).

 

[[icon]]

You are a coward. Actually...That's being a little harsh on cowards. I don't even know what you call your extreme cowardliness.

Do you think that killing somebody else makes you brave?

I think protecting my family from men who mean them harm makes me brave.

Not the question.

That's my answer. Take it or leave it.

Do you think dodging a question makes you brave?

Does failing to connect dots make you realize you're being a #######? Is blue your favorite color? Red is my favorite color. WHY ARE YOU DODGING THE QUESTION!? PROTIP: Obviously I don't feel killing someone else makes me brave if I refined your statement to a more accurate reflection of what "makes me feel brave". HTH.

Under fatguy's hypo, he and his family left their house and called the cops from somewhere else. They're safe in that scenario. Slingblade couldn't think of enough of a superlative to call that gutless.In both places, your family is hypothetically safe. It's just that in your scenario, some intruder is dead. So if that's the difference: does killing somebody else make you brave?

You're making the rather bold assumption that you can safely evacuate your family from a home with an intruder, and get them to absolute safety without incident. That's not an assumption I'm comfortable making. If you guys wish to engage in that side of a debate I'll have to abstain due to a significant difference of opinion of what can realistically be accomplished in the amount of time it takes an intruder to traverse from the front door to the living quarters of a home. Carry on.

 

[timschochet]

That's a whole lotta nuthin'.

No, it isn't nothing. He just dealt a harsh blow to mental health in America. Now that psychiatrists have been turned into snitches who is going to go to one? Never in my life will I ever visit a mental health practitioner. The risk of obtaining a label that can never be washed off is now omnipresent.

If this were in any way true, it would seriously bother me as well. But I can find anything in the description of the executive orders that comes close to this interpretation. The only thing that even touches upon it is an affirmation that Obamacare would not restrict doctors from reporting threats of violence to the authorities, and I would think that would be warranted.So please explain how you justify the comments that you made.

True. lawsuit details

This is a complicated issue. But I don't understand how what Obama did today affects it. That was my point.

 

[Henry Ford]

I know some think hiding the closet and blowing snot bubbles into the phone to 911 seems like the play here... but I tend to disagree.

If only there were other options.

Please.. explain these options. Maybe offer them a cup of tea? A game of chess? Explain that you're not a mafia don?

So, in your mind, you can:1) have a firearm and use it2) blow snot bubbles and hide in the closet3) offer a cup of tea4) play a game of chess5) explain that you're not a mafia donI just want to make sure on that. I mean, having a monitored home alarm system which sounds off, using a baseball bat or a hatchet for home defense, retreating outside with your family to call 911, having a saferoom in the house which the intruders can't get into, or calmly calling 911 without blowing snot bubbles, these things don't even enter your mind?

 

[Rohn Jambo]

You're making the rather bold assumption that you can safely evacuate your family from a home with an intruder, and get them to absolute safety without incident. That's not an assumption I'm comfortable making. If you guys wish to engage in that side of a debate I'll have to abstain due to a significant difference of opinion of what can realistically be accomplished in the amount of time it takes an intruder to traverse from the front door to the living quarters of a home. Carry on.

Maybe he has skills like 007. I personally can't even guarantee that I won't cut myself when I use my kitchen knife.

 

[Henry Ford]

You're making the rather bold assumption that you can safely evacuate your family from a home with an intruder, and get them to absolute safety without incident. That's not an assumption I'm comfortable making. If you guys wish to engage in that side of a debate I'll have to abstain due to a significant difference of opinion of what can realistically be accomplished in the amount of time it takes an intruder to traverse from the front door to the living quarters of a home. Carry on.

Maybe he has skills like 007. I personally can't even guarantee that I won't cut myself when I use my kitchen knife.

You should definitely get a gun, then.

 

[Apple Jack]

You're making the rather bold assumption that you can safely evacuate your family from a home with an intruder, and get them to absolute safety without incident. That's not an assumption I'm comfortable making. If you guys wish to engage in that side of a debate I'll have to abstain due to a significant difference of opinion of what can realistically be accomplished in the amount of time it takes an intruder to traverse from the front door to the living quarters of a home. Carry on.

Maybe he has skills like 007. I personally can't even guarantee that I won't cut myself when I use my kitchen knife.

Pfftt...think Kato from the Pink Panther.

 

[[icon]]

You are a coward. Actually...That's being a little harsh on cowards. I don't even know what you call your extreme cowardliness.

Do you think that killing somebody else makes you brave?

I think protecting my family from men who mean them harm makes me brave.

This.

And you think the safest way to do that is to stay and engage the person/people directly, rather than getting out of the way as quickly as possible? Who wouldn't be proud to have a dead Darwin award recipient for a father! Coward vs. brave is an embarrassing way to frame something this serious. The name of the game is keeping your family and you safe, not looking tough. If you think the best way to do that is to engage them in a shoot-out, sending bullets flying all about your family, then my thoughts are with your family should that hypothetic ever happen. Which obviously it won't.

Again, this boils down to a difference of opinion on whether you can safely remove your family from harms way in the mere seconds you'd have at your disposal. You guys might have some fancy quick release window/slide system in place and have trained extensively for it's use in an emergency. For that I applaud you. Based on the layout of my home and my expectations for how long a safe "evacuation" of the home would take, yes, I've decided that verbally warning then confronting the intruder has the highest probability of successfully protecting my family.

 

[Henry Ford]

You are a coward. Actually...That's being a little harsh on cowards. I don't even know what you call your extreme cowardliness.

Do you think that killing somebody else makes you brave?

I think protecting my family from men who mean them harm makes me brave.

This.

And you think the safest way to do that is to stay and engage the person/people directly, rather than getting out of the way as quickly as possible? Who wouldn't be proud to have a dead Darwin award recipient for a father! Coward vs. brave is an embarrassing way to frame something this serious. The name of the game is keeping your family and you safe, not looking tough. If you think the best way to do that is to engage them in a shoot-out, sending bullets flying all about your family, then my thoughts are with your family should that hypothetic ever happen. Which obviously it won't.

Again, this boils down to a difference of opinion on whether you can safely remove your family from harms way in the mere seconds you'd have at your disposal. You guys might have some fancy quick release window/slide system in place and have trained extensively for it's use in an emergency. For that I applaud you. Based on the layout of my home and my expectations for how long a safe "evacuation" of the home would take, yes, I've decided that verbally warning then confronting the intruder has the highest probability of successfully protecting my family.

That's perfectly fair. The poster who stated that a person who has other plans for his family is a coward - or worse than a coward - doesn't appear to be taking that position.

 

[JHuber77]

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

EMBARGOED UNTIL THE START OF THE PRESIDENT’S REMARKS

January 16, 2013

Gun Violence Reduction Executive Actions

Today, the President is announcing that he and the Administration will:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

EMBARGOED

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

This one I have a problem with along with. You should not have to answer to a doctor if you own guns unless that doctor is a mental health provider and certain circumstances exist. The ban on military assault weapons and magazines is a load of garbage too, as these won't prevent gun violence anywhere in America because one can do just as much damage with other types of weapons without the need for high capacity magazines.

 

[Henry Ford]

This one I have a problem with along with. You should not have to answer to a doctor if you own guns unless that doctor is a mental health provider and certain circumstances exist.

Pretty sure that's what the clarification is about.

 

[[icon]]

I know some think hiding the closet and blowing snot bubbles into the phone to 911 seems like the play here... but I tend to disagree.

If only there were other options.

Please.. explain these options. Maybe offer them a cup of tea? A game of chess? Explain that you're not a mafia don?

So, in your mind, you can:1) have a firearm and use it2) blow snot bubbles and hide in the closet3) offer a cup of tea4) play a game of chess5) explain that you're not a mafia donI just want to make sure on that. I mean, having a monitored home alarm system which sounds off, using a baseball bat or a hatchet for home defense, retreating outside with your family to call 911, having a saferoom in the house which the intruders can't get into, or calmly calling 911 without blowing snot bubbles, these things don't even enter your mind?

Regarding the home defense hachet For a saferoom to be effective it must be a lot more than a closet with a solid core door... I hope you realize that right? Is there any chance of encountering said intruder for any members of the family moving from their bedrooms to this safe room? No chance of kids getting grabbed while running to the safe room in mommy and daddy's room? How safe IS this safe room? Calling 911: Average police response time is close to 10 minutes. They are no help to you. Evacuating your family: My thoughts.

 

[[icon]]

That's perfectly fair. The poster who stated that a person who has other plans for his family is a coward - or worse than a coward - doesn't appear to be taking that position.

Maybe not but it was funny.

 

[jonboltz]

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

This one I have a problem with along with. You should not have to answer to a doctor if you own guns unless that doctor is a mental health provider and certain circumstances exist.

I don't see where it says that.

 

[tom22406]

NRA vows "The Fight of the Century"

Did you expect them to not fight the AWB?

 

[boots11234]

You are a coward. Actually...That's being a little harsh on cowards. I don't even know what you call your extreme cowardliness.

Do you think that killing somebody else makes you brave?

I think protecting my family from men who mean them harm makes me brave.

This.

And you think the safest way to do that is to stay and engage the person/people directly, rather than getting out of the way as quickly as possible? Who wouldn't be proud to have a dead Darwin award recipient for a father! Coward vs. brave is an embarrassing way to frame something this serious. The name of the game is keeping your family and you safe, not looking tough. If you think the best way to do that is to engage them in a shoot-out, sending bullets flying all about your family, then my thoughts are with your family should that hypothetic ever happen. Which obviously it won't.

Again, this boils down to a difference of opinion on whether you can safely remove your family from harms way in the mere seconds you'd have at your disposal. You guys might have some fancy quick release window/slide system in place and have trained extensively for it's use in an emergency. For that I applaud you. Based on the layout of my home and my expectations for how long a safe "evacuation" of the home would take, yes, I've decided that verbally warning then confronting the intruder has the highest probability of successfully protecting my family.

Lets get back to the "snot bubbles", perhaps the grabbers would suggest shooting said bubbles at attackers instead of into the phone. Or on the floor to make their trail slippery when executing their well thought out evacuation plan half asleep, in their underwear with the man of the house pissing down his leg cuz he's a coward.

 

[JHuber77]

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

This one I have a problem with along with. You should not have to answer to a doctor if you own guns unless that doctor is a mental health provider and certain circumstances exist.

I don't see where it says that.

So under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) a doctor could ask you whether or not you have guns and if you refuse to answer, what's the end result?

 

[Rohn Jambo]

NRA vows "The Fight of the Century"

Did you expect them to not fight the AWB?

It is not a real fight if they cannot use their guns.

 

[jonboltz]

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

This one I have a problem with along with. You should not have to answer to a doctor if you own guns unless that doctor is a mental health provider and certain circumstances exist.

I don't see where it says that.

So under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) a doctor could ask you whether or not you have guns and if you refuse to answer, what's the end result?

They ask the next question on their list of questions?

 

[[icon]]

I warned you that some day the government would issue some executive orders which are totally not threatening to gun ownership at all and something that 90% of the citizens would agree with.

You didn't actually read about the plans beyond the executive orders... did you? Not that I think the NRA are the most sensible bunch out there, but you might want to go ahead and read ALL the objectives outlined today before you start hammering on your front color and caps lock keys... lest you look as foolish as them.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

I think there was a lot of common sense in the proposed executive orders - but I think the interesting one to address is the placement of security resources in the schools. there are approximately 100,000 public schools in the US. If one security resource was placed in each school as a salaried position (and lets just guess at around $70,000 between salary and benefits - that is $7 B before you even consider the cost to equip and train them. Not saying it is necessarily a bad idea - but it costs a lot of money. What I would like to see is projected $ to go along with the proposed orders.

 

[Jewell]

You are a coward. Actually...That's being a little harsh on cowards. I don't even know what you call your extreme cowardliness.

Do you think that killing somebody else makes you brave?

I think protecting my family from men who mean them harm makes me brave.

This.

And you think the safest way to do that is to stay and engage the person/people directly, rather than getting out of the way as quickly as possible? Who wouldn't be proud to have a dead Darwin award recipient for a father! Coward vs. brave is an embarrassing way to frame something this serious. The name of the game is keeping your family and you safe, not looking tough. If you think the best way to do that is to engage them in a shoot-out, sending bullets flying all about your family, then my thoughts are with your family should that hypothetic ever happen. Which obviously it won't.

I live in quite a large house with family members on the other side. No, I'm not going to run like a coward, like you. I will engage the target and eliminate the threat.

Refer to your gun as your family welfare safety net. Like other welfare safety nets, respectable people hope to never have to use it, but it's there just in case. Like other welfare safety nets, respectable people don't want to use the welfare net when they don't need to because of the stigma that attaches with such abuse. I find couching your position in these terms helpful because the people most opposed to guns are generally the same people most in favor of welfare safety nets. So perhaps that phrasing will resonate with them.

 

[dnurk]

I haven't read the whole thing and won't get sucked into some of the childish taunting here, but let me say this. Those who say they are OK with a "high capacity" magazine ban, do you realize what that would entail? If you go with what the state of NY did yesterday and outright ban anything over 10 rounds you are effectively eliminating the lawful right of citizens to properly equip handguns other than revolvers and some 1911s. Standard capacity Glock and S&W magazines run from 13 to 19 rounds depending on size and caliber. The .22LR I teach Boyscouts to shoot with is a Ruger 10/22. It is likely the most popular target and small game rifle in the world. Guess how many rounds the standard magazine holds? 10 rounds. Does anyone here honestly think this will protect our children? Eliminate mass shootings? Have ANY impact on criminal activity?This is no longer about "assault rifles." It is a firmly held belief by some in the government and some of our citizens that the general population does NOT have a right that is specified in the 2A.

 

[jonessed]

Slingblade, would you do us a favor and just stay out of this discussion? We get your point of view; there are plenty of people here who express your POV far better than you do, and they manage to do so without throwing constant insults at everyone who disagrees with them, and without your general unpleasantness.Based on the way you throw around words like "moron" and "coward", I suspect you're not very bright. That's nothing to be ashamed about. You can learn and improve yourself. Perhaps if you take the time and effort and truly educate yourself, someday you'll provide something of value to this forum. Unfortunately, that day has not yet arrived.

You really can't take the high ground on insults while simultaneously insulting someone. Well, I suppose you can, but it makes you look like a hypocrite. I know I'm not the only one that finds your self-righteous, "look at me" attitude quite annoying and largely unproductive.You have to deal with Slingblade, I have to deal with you, and I'm sure there are numerous people that would prefer not to have to deal with me, but that's life. Unlike normal day to day interactions here we have the ability to ignore people we don't want to hear from.. If you dislike someone that much, use it.

 

[Jewell]

I warned you that some day the government would issue some executive orders which are totally not threatening to gun ownership at all and something that 90% of the citizens would agree with.

Tell me when this happens because I guarantee you that polling will reflect that the percentage of Americans that agree with these executive orders is not approaching 90%.

 

[jonessed]

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

This one I have a problem with along with. You should not have to answer to a doctor if you own guns unless that doctor is a mental health provider and certain circumstances exist.

I don't see where it says that.

So under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) a doctor could ask you whether or not you have guns and if you refuse to answer, what's the end result?

What's the end result if you say you have a gun? I suspect there isn't much the doctor can do but finger-wag you if they so choose.It seems rather pointless.

 

[tom22406]

NRA vows "The Fight of the Century"

Did you expect them to not fight the AWB?

Just read the link. Ye gods. Talk about overly dramatic.

“I warned you this day was coming and now it is here,” NRA president Wayne LaPierre declares in the leaflet

I warned you that some day the government would issue some executive orders which are totally not threatening to gun ownership at all and something that 90% of the citizens would agree with. And that day is now here.TO THE BUNKERS!!!!!

Wasn't really an answer to my question.

 

[timschochet]

Slingblade, would you do us a favor and just stay out of this discussion? We get your point of view; there are plenty of people here who express your POV far better than you do, and they manage to do so without throwing constant insults at everyone who disagrees with them, and without your general unpleasantness.Based on the way you throw around words like "moron" and "coward", I suspect you're not very bright. That's nothing to be ashamed about. You can learn and improve yourself. Perhaps if you take the time and effort and truly educate yourself, someday you'll provide something of value to this forum. Unfortunately, that day has not yet arrived.

You really can't take the high ground on insults while simultaneously insulting someone. Well, I suppose you can, but it makes you look like a hypocrite. I know I'm not the only one that finds your self-righteous, "look at me" attitude quite annoying and largely unproductive.You have to deal with Slingblade, I have to deal with you, and I'm sure there are numerous people that would prefer not to have to deal with me, but that's life. Unlike normal day to day interactions here we have the ability to ignore people we don't want to hear from.. If you dislike someone that much, use it.

I have never responded to you with personal insults, have I? I don't think I've done that to anyone else here. I admit my post to Slingblade is pretty insulting, but that's after days and days of having to put up with posts from him calling people morons and cowards and other names. I'm sick of it. Unlike you, and most other people here, he offers nothing of value to the discussion.

 

[Slingblade]

Slingblade, would you do us a favor and just stay out of this discussion? We get your point of view; there are plenty of people here who express your POV far better than you do, and they manage to do so without throwing constant insults at everyone who disagrees with them, and without your general unpleasantness.Based on the way you throw around words like "moron" and "coward", I suspect you're not very bright. That's nothing to be ashamed about. You can learn and improve yourself. Perhaps if you take the time and effort and truly educate yourself, someday you'll provide something of value to this forum. Unfortunately, that day has not yet arrived.

 

[timschochet]

I haven't read the whole thing and won't get sucked into some of the childish taunting here, but let me say this. Those who say they are OK with a "high capacity" magazine ban, do you realize what that would entail? If you go with what the state of NY did yesterday and outright ban anything over 10 rounds you are effectively eliminating the lawful right of citizens to properly equip handguns other than revolvers and some 1911s. Standard capacity Glock and S&W magazines run from 13 to 19 rounds depending on size and caliber. The .22LR I teach Boyscouts to shoot with is a Ruger 10/22. It is likely the most popular target and small game rifle in the world. Guess how many rounds the standard magazine holds? 10 rounds. Does anyone here honestly think this will protect our children? Eliminate mass shootings? Have ANY impact on criminal activity?This is no longer about "assault rifles." It is a firmly held belief by some in the government and some of our citizens that the general population does NOT have a right that is specified in the 2A.

My answer to you is this: if there are some guns for sale that only work with magazines which exceed 10 bullets (which is the proposed limit) then too bad. Those weapons should not be legal. Placing a 10 round limit on magazines will help with mass shootings such as the one Jared Loughner committed, during which he was stopped while trying to reload. In no way does this impact the 2nd Amendment.

 

[badmojo1006]

NRA vows "The Fight of the Century"

Did you expect them to not fight the AWB?

 

[jonessed]

Slingblade, would you do us a favor and just stay out of this discussion? We get your point of view; there are plenty of people here who express your POV far better than you do, and they manage to do so without throwing constant insults at everyone who disagrees with them, and without your general unpleasantness.Based on the way you throw around words like "moron" and "coward", I suspect you're not very bright. That's nothing to be ashamed about. You can learn and improve yourself. Perhaps if you take the time and effort and truly educate yourself, someday you'll provide something of value to this forum. Unfortunately, that day has not yet arrived.

You really can't take the high ground on insults while simultaneously insulting someone. Well, I suppose you can, but it makes you look like a hypocrite. I know I'm not the only one that finds your self-righteous, "look at me" attitude quite annoying and largely unproductive.You have to deal with Slingblade, I have to deal with you, and I'm sure there are numerous people that would prefer not to have to deal with me, but that's life. Unlike normal day to day interactions here we have the ability to ignore people we don't want to hear from.. If you dislike someone that much, use it.

I have never responded to you with personal insults, have I? I don't think I've done that to anyone else here. I admit my post to Slingblade is pretty insulting, but that's after days and days of having to put up with posts from him calling people morons and cowards and other names. I'm sick of it. Unlike you, and most other people here, he offers nothing of value to the discussion.

I'm not sure I would remember if you did. Personal insults fly around quite a lot in these threads, some of them veiled, some of them not-so-much. I started using the ignore function a lot more about a year ago for frequent offenders. It's better than getting into pissing contests. I'm sure there are some that have me on ignore as well and that suits me.Slingblade was more productive early on, but has since seemed to hit his breaking point. It happens. He's not the only one in this thread whose contributions have deteriorated. We are essentially beating a dead horse at this point anyway.

 

[JHuber77]

I haven't read the whole thing and won't get sucked into some of the childish taunting here, but let me say this. Those who say they are OK with a "high capacity" magazine ban, do you realize what that would entail? If you go with what the state of NY did yesterday and outright ban anything over 10 rounds you are effectively eliminating the lawful right of citizens to properly equip handguns other than revolvers and some 1911s. Standard capacity Glock and S&W magazines run from 13 to 19 rounds depending on size and caliber. The .22LR I teach Boyscouts to shoot with is a Ruger 10/22. It is likely the most popular target and small game rifle in the world. Guess how many rounds the standard magazine holds? 10 rounds. Does anyone here honestly think this will protect our children? Eliminate mass shootings? Have ANY impact on criminal activity?This is no longer about "assault rifles." It is a firmly held belief by some in the government and some of our citizens that the general population does NOT have a right that is specified in the 2A.

My answer to you is this: if there are some guns for sale that only work with magazines which exceed 10 bullets (which is the proposed limit) then too bad. Those weapons should not be legal. Placing a 10 round limit on magazines will help with mass shootings such as the one Jared Loughner committed, during which he was stopped while trying to reload. In no way does this impact the 2nd Amendment.

He was stopped because the gun jammed, not because he was reloading. A victim that was already wounded tried to grab the gun from him when he was reloading.

 

[timschochet]

I haven't read the whole thing and won't get sucked into some of the childish taunting here, but let me say this. Those who say they are OK with a "high capacity" magazine ban, do you realize what that would entail? If you go with what the state of NY did yesterday and outright ban anything over 10 rounds you are effectively eliminating the lawful right of citizens to properly equip handguns other than revolvers and some 1911s. Standard capacity Glock and S&W magazines run from 13 to 19 rounds depending on size and caliber. The .22LR I teach Boyscouts to shoot with is a Ruger 10/22. It is likely the most popular target and small game rifle in the world. Guess how many rounds the standard magazine holds? 10 rounds. Does anyone here honestly think this will protect our children? Eliminate mass shootings? Have ANY impact on criminal activity?This is no longer about "assault rifles." It is a firmly held belief by some in the government and some of our citizens that the general population does NOT have a right that is specified in the 2A.

My answer to you is this: if there are some guns for sale that only work with magazines which exceed 10 bullets (which is the proposed limit) then too bad. Those weapons should not be legal. Placing a 10 round limit on magazines will help with mass shootings such as the one Jared Loughner committed, during which he was stopped while trying to reload. In no way does this impact the 2nd Amendment.

He was stopped because the gun jammed, not because he was reloading. A victim that was already wounded tried to grab the gun from him when he was reloading.

Doesn't matter. Sorry I got it wrong, but my point still stands. If he had only a 10 round magazine, he would have been tackled earlier and lives would have been saved.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

I haven't read the whole thing and won't get sucked into some of the childish taunting here, but let me say this. Those who say they are OK with a "high capacity" magazine ban, do you realize what that would entail? If you go with what the state of NY did yesterday and outright ban anything over 10 rounds you are effectively eliminating the lawful right of citizens to properly equip handguns other than revolvers and some 1911s. Standard capacity Glock and S&W magazines run from 13 to 19 rounds depending on size and caliber.

The .22LR I teach Boyscouts to shoot with is a Ruger 10/22. It is likely the most popular target and small game rifle in the world. Guess how many rounds the standard magazine holds? 10 rounds.

Does anyone here honestly think this will protect our children? Eliminate mass shootings? Have ANY impact on criminal activity?

This is no longer about "assault rifles." It is a firmly held belief by some in the government and some of our citizens that the general population does NOT have a right that is specified in the 2A.

My answer to you is this: if there are some guns for sale that only work with magazines which exceed 10 bullets (which is the proposed limit) then too bad. Those weapons should not be legal. Placing a 10 round limit on magazines will help with mass shootings such as the one Jared Loughner committed, during which he was stopped while trying to reload. In no way does this impact the 2nd Amendment.

He was stopped because the gun jammed, not because he was reloading. A victim that was already wounded tried to grab the gun from him when he was reloading.

Doesn't matter. Sorry I got it wrong, but my point still stands. If he had only a 10 round magazine, he would have been tackled earlier and lives would have been saved.

What if he had two 10 round magazines?

 

[JHuber77]

I haven't read the whole thing and won't get sucked into some of the childish taunting here, but let me say this. Those who say they are OK with a "high capacity" magazine ban, do you realize what that would entail? If you go with what the state of NY did yesterday and outright ban anything over 10 rounds you are effectively eliminating the lawful right of citizens to properly equip handguns other than revolvers and some 1911s. Standard capacity Glock and S&W magazines run from 13 to 19 rounds depending on size and caliber. The .22LR I teach Boyscouts to shoot with is a Ruger 10/22. It is likely the most popular target and small game rifle in the world. Guess how many rounds the standard magazine holds? 10 rounds. Does anyone here honestly think this will protect our children? Eliminate mass shootings? Have ANY impact on criminal activity?This is no longer about "assault rifles." It is a firmly held belief by some in the government and some of our citizens that the general population does NOT have a right that is specified in the 2A.

My answer to you is this: if there are some guns for sale that only work with magazines which exceed 10 bullets (which is the proposed limit) then too bad. Those weapons should not be legal. Placing a 10 round limit on magazines will help with mass shootings such as the one Jared Loughner committed, during which he was stopped while trying to reload. In no way does this impact the 2nd Amendment.

He was stopped because the gun jammed, not because he was reloading. A victim that was already wounded tried to grab the gun from him when he was reloading.

Doesn't matter. Sorry I got it wrong, but my point still stands. If he had only a 10 round magazine, he would have been tackled earlier and lives would have been saved.

Actually it does. If the gun hadn't jammed, he could have still shot someone. The gun jammed after he reloaded. At that point, he was tackled. The size of the magazine did not matter.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Sorry I haven't been this thread for a while to respond to stuff. It seemed really scary so I ran away.

 

[jonessed]

I haven't read the whole thing and won't get sucked into some of the childish taunting here, but let me say this. Those who say they are OK with a "high capacity" magazine ban, do you realize what that would entail? If you go with what the state of NY did yesterday and outright ban anything over 10 rounds you are effectively eliminating the lawful right of citizens to properly equip handguns other than revolvers and some 1911s. Standard capacity Glock and S&W magazines run from 13 to 19 rounds depending on size and caliber. The .22LR I teach Boyscouts to shoot with is a Ruger 10/22. It is likely the most popular target and small game rifle in the world. Guess how many rounds the standard magazine holds? 10 rounds. Does anyone here honestly think this will protect our children? Eliminate mass shootings? Have ANY impact on criminal activity?This is no longer about "assault rifles." It is a firmly held belief by some in the government and some of our citizens that the general population does NOT have a right that is specified in the 2A.

My answer to you is this: if there are some guns for sale that only work with magazines which exceed 10 bullets (which is the proposed limit) then too bad. Those weapons should not be legal. Placing a 10 round limit on magazines will help with mass shootings such as the one Jared Loughner committed, during which he was stopped while trying to reload. In no way does this impact the 2nd Amendment.

If the law limits the current use of commonly owned and currently legal firearms it certainly isn't a stretch to claim it is limiting the 2nd Amendment.Ten rounds is a pretty arbitrary number. At what point does it infringe on the 2nd Amendment? 8? 6? 4? I would argue that any weapon, magazine, or clip made available to police should be made available to citizens for self-protection.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

"This is our first task as a society: keeping our children safe. This is how we will be judged," Obama said. "We can't put this off any longer."

 

[Henry Ford]

I know some think hiding the closet and blowing snot bubbles into the phone to 911 seems like the play here... but I tend to disagree.

If only there were other options.

Please.. explain these options. Maybe offer them a cup of tea? A game of chess? Explain that you're not a mafia don?

So, in your mind, you can:1) have a firearm and use it2) blow snot bubbles and hide in the closet3) offer a cup of tea4) play a game of chess5) explain that you're not a mafia donI just want to make sure on that. I mean, having a monitored home alarm system which sounds off, using a baseball bat or a hatchet for home defense, retreating outside with your family to call 911, having a saferoom in the house which the intruders can't get into, or calmly calling 911 without blowing snot bubbles, these things don't even enter your mind?

Regarding the home defense hachet For a saferoom to be effective it must be a lot more than a closet with a solid core door... I hope you realize that right? Is there any chance of encountering said intruder for any members of the family moving from their bedrooms to this safe room? No chance of kids getting grabbed while running to the safe room in mommy and daddy's room? How safe IS this safe room? Calling 911: Average police response time is close to 10 minutes. They are no help to you. Evacuating your family: My thoughts.

People spend thousands of dollars on guns. It's perfectly reasonable to spend thousands of dollars on an honest-to-God saferoom instead.And if the kids can get grabbed while running to this saferoom, they can get grabbed while you're running to get between them and the intruder(s). What are you going to do then? Seems like there are no perfect solutions.