Gun laws

[Guest Guest]

There is one huge difference between firearms ownership and fast cars.

 

There is Constitutional protection for the ownership of firearms.

 

You have been given the opportunity to ask an intelligent question or comment in support of your ignorant belief and you have not been able to.

 

 

YOU FAIL

[Guest Guest]

No, sir - you fail. Trying to compare one item to another while avoiding the question completely proves that there is no logical reason to have a 31 round clip for a handgun. Cars were not around when the constitutions was written, so comparing the two is childish and irrelevant.

[Navin R Johnson]

No, sir - you fail. Trying to compare one item to another while avoiding the question completely proves that there is no logical reason to have a 31 round clip for a handgun. Cars were not around when the constitutions was written, so comparing the two is childish and irrelevant.

I have yet to hear an argument what would a lower amount of ammunition would do. Sure there would be less wounded and possibly dead, but the act still continued and would continue. people would still be hurt and killed by a ten round clip. So come one. figure out what is a good number of rounds legally in a clip. One dead person killed my a whack job is one too many. limiting the amount of rounds is a simple minded fix but doesnt solve the problem.

[Guest Guest]

I have yet to hear an argument what would a lower amount of ammunition would do. Sure there would be less wounded and possibly dead, but the act still continued and would continue. people would still be hurt and killed by a ten round clip. So come one. figure out what is a good number of rounds legally in a clip. One dead person killed my a whack job is one too many. limiting the amount of rounds is a simple minded fix but doesnt solve the problem.

Simple minded? Maybe you can answer why anyone would need a 31 round clip for a handgun?

 

You tell us what will solve the problem.

 

Are you also of the mindset that a 60% reduction in the number of injuries and fatalities at this event doesn't make a difference?

[Guest Guest]

I have yet to hear an argument what would a lower amount of ammunition would do. Sure there would be less wounded and possibly dead, but the act still continued and would continue. people would still be hurt and killed by a ten round clip. So come one. figure out what is a good number of rounds legally in a clip. One dead person killed my a whack job is one too many. limiting the amount of rounds is a simple minded fix but doesnt solve the problem.

 

Amazing. Are you seriously arguing that the number of dead and wounded doesn’t matter?

[Navin R Johnson]

Simple minded? Maybe you can answer why anyone would need a 31 round clip for a handgun?

 

You tell us what will solve the problem.

 

Are you also of the mindset that a 60% reduction in the number of injuries and fatalities at this event doesn't make a difference?

you are the same dope that I was discussing this issue the other day. 19 wounded or 9 wounded? any number is too many. Limiting the rounds in a clip is nothing more than a band aid on a huge wound. It is not a fix. The number of rounds is not an issue. The nut pulling the trigger is

[Navin R Johnson]

Amazing. Are you seriously arguing that the number of dead and wounded doesnt matter?

I am arguing that you are focusing on a band aid when the problem still exists. And are you arguing that 10 less wounded would be acceptable if the clip had 15 rounds instead of 30? you would be okay with an incident where 3 people were killed and 10 wounded instead of 6 and 19 because the guy had only 15 rounds of ammo? I am trying to get you to think of a bigger solution rather than a little simple one.

[Guest Guest]

you are the same dope that I was discussing this issue the other day. 19 wounded or 9 wounded? any number is too many. Limiting the rounds in a clip is nothing more than a band aid on a huge wound. It is not a fix. The number of rounds is not an issue. The nut pulling the trigger is

No I'm not, so the insults won't be necessary.

 

So you tell us what will solve the problem, since you think limiting the number of rounds in a clip won't.

[Guest Guest]

 

No, they don’t need and should not have guns capable of mass murder such as guns with 30 shot clips.

 

 

 

People can and have committed "mass murder" with a book of matches and a can of lighter fluid.

[Guest Guest]

Automatic and semi-automatic weapons, especially handguns, should be outlawed or at least VERY strictly controlled.

Automatic weapons are outlawed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YumfuMNM08c

[Guest Guest]

The ACA gunman had NY legal 10-round magazines, but he was able to kill twice as many people because he had more guns. If high cap magazines were illegal in the US maybe the AZ gunman would have packed multiple guns and would have been able to unload rounds at twice the rate. Maybe with two guns firing at the same time he would have killed more people, perish the thought.

 

Banning extended magazines is a knee-jerk reaction to this isolated incident. There are drum magazines available for handguns and rifles that can hold anywhere between 50-100+ rounds, but I never have heard of a single incident where one was used in a mass killing. Criminals from NY can easily go to PA or another state and buy extended magazines, and criminals coming into the state aren't going to discard them at the border. Hundreds of thousands of extended magazines are already on the street, so a ban only stops new sales to law-abiding citizens. A lot of gun magazines can be illegally altered to have their low capacity limit removed. So there are plenty of ways a criminal can commit a heinous crime with a lot of bullets if they really want to -- ban or no ban.

 

As for me, I wish NY didn't ban them because it would save me time reloading at the range!

[Navin R Johnson]

No I'm not, so the insults won't be necessary.

 

So you tell us what will solve the problem, since you think limiting the number of rounds in a clip won't.

I don't know what will solve the problem as I stated to you the other day as another named poster. That is why we are trying to have a discussion on this. you offered your opinion and I had a rebutal. Maybe if this countries leaders would stop pointing fingers at one another as whose fault it was and look into how as a collective group we can stop these attacks, we would be better off. I don't have a solution, I wish I did.

[Guest Guest]

Why?

 

 

Should we outlaw kitchen knives, baseball bats, hockey sticks, lacross sticks, darts, scissors, anything made of glass that can be broken and become sharp, mirrors... I know it sounds stupid. As stupid as saying we should outlaw guns. They are inanimate objects. Neither inherently good or evil. Lets start with outlawing STUPID and lock you up.

 

 

Your insults only display your IQ and maturity lad.

[Guest Guest]

Thy were, until Congress let the Brady Bill expire in 2004.

I think that the only thing the Brady bill covered was the clip.Auto anything still are illegal.

[Guest Guest]

If there was no such things as guns, crazy people or criminals would find another means of committing a crime. That saying, where there's a will, there's a way.

[Guest Guest]

I think that the only thing the Brady bill covered was the clip.Auto anything still are illegal.

 

 

 

 

The news reported that the semi-automatic Glock was purchases legally in AZ.

[Guest Guest]

The news reported that the semi-automatic Glock was purchases legally in AZ.

 

Semi-automatic is perfectly legal. Semi-automatic means you pull the trigger to fire one bullet and you have to keep pulling the trigger to fire a bullet. Automatic means you hold the trigger down and it will fire until it's empty (like a machine gun).

 

Automatic weapons are legal in most states (not NY, of course), however, that's only for the automatic weapons that are grandfathered in pre-ban. You can't buy new automatic weapons. In states where you can own pre-ban automatic weapons you have to undergo an extensive background check and pay a 200 dollar federal tax. As you can imagine, due to the rarity of the pre-ban autos they go for a pretty penny. Last PA gun show I was at had a few automatics and they were each over 15,000 dollars.

[Guest Guest]

Please enlighten us as to why anyone would need a 31 round clip for a handgun? Try and be logical now - think reasonably.

 

It's not about a need. It's about a legal right.

[Guest Guest]

It's not about a need. It's about a legal right.

I understand. That makes perfect sense.

[Guest Guest]

I understand. That makes perfect sense.

 

We don't have rights because we NEED them. We have them separate from the government. They don't originate from the government, but by the Creator as repeatedly stated in the Declaration of Independence.

 

 

Giffords owns a glock and an AK47 by the way..........

[Navin R Johnson]

I understand. That makes perfect sense.

Try and follow this logic. We don't need all these idiots in the media who are taking this opportunity to point fingers and use the death of people as propoganda. However it is there right to voice their opinion. Rights and needs are two different things. Pretty straightforward. I don't like guns. I do not own one. Never had the urge to shoot them for sport or hunting. I don't need guns. I do support those that legally have guns for hunting or sporting purpose. If I want a gun, I want to be able to legally purchase one. That is my right. It was promised to me and all of us in the bill of rights. just because you think people don't have a need for it, doesn't mean that they should be outlawed. We live in a democracy. When you start taking rights away from others, you will lose your own.

[Guest Guest]

No gun laws are needed. Just get rid of Sarah Palin in the media and all violence in the United States will immediately cease.

[Guest Guest]

I understand. That makes perfect sense.

It's simple: it seems like we don't currently "need" the guns because it's our right to have them.

 

Take away the right, and I assure you, you will very quickly discover why we need them.

[Guest Guest]

It's simple: it seems like we don't currently "need" the guns because it's our right to have them.

 

Take away the right, and I assure you, you will very quickly discover why we need them.

We don't "need" 31 round magazines for pistols like was used in AZ.

[Navin R Johnson]

We don't "need" 31 round magazines for pistols like was used in AZ.

people don't also need burning weeds stuck in thier mouth and they dont need to inhale the toxins and contaminate the air with smoke. But it is their right to do that if they choose. You are not the decider in charge. Just because you are against something, doesnt mean that it should be outlawed.