Discussion: The Second Amendment V

[KalMart]

By all means, stop illegal guns. Stop the **** out of them. But trying to get to them through the legally purchased and owned ones is like chasing a getaway car using a tricycle. If they're lucky, after the crime has been committed and they somehow capture the firearm used...hey, they'll know who bought it IF it was even bought and registered legally. Which will somehow unlock the time-travel portal they've been developing all these years so that they can go back in time and prevent the crime. And for every captured gun used in a crime that can be legally tracked like that, three untraceable illegal guns out there that haven't been caught just......evaporate....leaving but a few scant thousand for each legal one.

Of course, the heart is in the right place to want to do something, anything, to help prevent gun crime and tragedies like what happened in that school. But what is ridiculous is just how clueless and ineffective gun law propositions like these are. No the answer is not 'just do nothing'...it is 'come up with something', for pete's sake, and not this 'sticks and stones' approach that 'anti-gunners' continue to throw out there. It's almost as if they know it won't actually do anything, but at least they tried. They need to do a lot more homework. And each one of these instances is a chortling win for well-informed gun defenders. The two sides need to come together firstly so that those who are anti-gun are better informed, and secondly so that gun defenders accept their share of responsibility in protecting the well-being of their fellow citizens from gun crime...and not just by carrying themselves.

 

[Kable24]

I didn't say not do anything about illegal guns. The bill for universal background check isn't going to stop illegal guns. What is so hard to comprehend that criminals aren't going to bother with background checks?

I laugh when anti gunners bring up the whole "well we have to register our vehicles", but when pro gunners bring up the cars kill more than guns, it's BS? Talk about a bunch of hypocrites.

 

[SV Fan]

I laugh when anti gunners bring up the whole "well we have to register our vehicles", but when pro gunners bring up the cars kill more than guns, it's BS? Talk about a bunch of hypocrites.

I don't see how more people dieing in car accidents then gun shootings makes the point hypocritical.

Now if somebody was arguing well we shouldn't register cars, but guns we definitely should register, then I could see a case of the comment being hypocritical.

 

[KalMart]

Thing is...you can't just go with gun laws to try and make a difference. It has to go along with improvements/funding in education and law enforcement, and even violence in entertainment. A bigger, more detailed plan has to be put into place that covers a lot of areas in our lives.


Hard...excruciatingly difficult to cover so many areas? No kidding. But do you want to make an actual difference or not?

 

[Hotwire]

I didn't say not do anything about illegal guns. The bill for universal background check isn't going to stop illegal guns. What is so hard to comprehend that criminals aren't going to bother with background checks?

I laugh when anti gunners bring up the whole "well we have to register our vehicles", but when pro gunners bring up the cars kill more than guns, it's BS? Talk about a bunch of hypocrites.

So, what's your idea for getting illegal guns off the streets?

Actually, since you brought up automobile deaths, and I put vehicle registration on the table, let's look at them. Because of the hazards involved in operating a motor vehicle, we set age restrictions, and other requirements. Why not do the same for gun owners? Why not make it mandatory for all gun owners to be of a certain age, go through training, and hen become licensed before they can own a gun? That would promote responsible gun ownership.

Personally, I'm tired of the pro-gun crowd shooting down every idea with the same whiney response of, "It's too hard."

 

[KalMart]

Personally, I'm tired of the pro-gun crowd shooting down every idea with the same whiney response of, "It's too hard."

Rest assured, pro-gun advocates are even more fed up of hearing from anti-gunners that it's too hard to do more than their proposed lip-service. But to be fair, there lies a moral obligation from pro-gunners as well to assist and inform anti's to get something done. If there wasn't such a political divide, more progress may happen on that front. Anti-gunners can't come up with anything substantial, pro-gunners won't even leave an opening. The 'hardest' thing to do, on both ends, is to remove politics from the equation. Can that happen?

 

[SV Fan]

The 'hardest' thing to do, on both ends, is to remove politics from the equation. Can that happen?

Probably not.

I could be 100% wrong about this but I think the Democrats know that making issues between the Republicans Base(ie Primary voters) and Moderates(General Election Voters) will win them votes in the long run with the Moderates, so they on purpose bring up stuff to the forefront to try win over those moderates(ie reasonable stances such as background checks but probably not the best to solve the actual issue) while holding Republican House and Senate people to make a choice which is more important(primary or General elections) so in the next election the Republicans look bad to that general voting crowd and maybe they can win a few extra house seats plus keep control of the Senate.

It's a basic case of using division politics that Republicans had no problem using for the past 40 years, now that some issues favor the Democrats

 

[Kable24]

So, what's your idea for getting illegal guns off the streets?

Actually, since you brought up automobile deaths, and I put vehicle registration on the table, let's look at them. Because of the hazards involved in operating a motor vehicle, we set age restrictions, and other requirements. Why not do the same for gun owners? Why not make it mandatory for all gun owners to be of a certain age, go through training, and hen become licensed before they can own a gun? That would promote responsible gun ownership.

Personally, I'm tired of the pro-gun crowd shooting down every idea with the same whiney response of, "It's too hard."

There are age restrictions to buying guns. In my state to buy a firearm you have to be 18
Per 18 Pa.C.S. § 6110.1 (Possession of firearm by minor), the minimum age to possess a firearm is 18 with two exceptions:

1. The minor is under the supervision of a parent, grandparent, legal guardian, or an adult acting with the expressed consent of the minor's parent or legal guardian and involved in lawful activity.
2. The minor is lawfully involved in hunting or trapping activities.

A lot of states do require safety course. PA is a voluntary safety course which when I was in junior high was offered called the PA Hunter's Safety Course. Every gun club around me offers pistol training classes. I have no problem with that, but it's still not stopping illegal guns.



I'm pretty sick of the gun grabbers thinking registrations, mag capacity and the way a gun looks is going to change anything about illegal guns. Especially, from those who know absolutely nothing about guns.

 

[SV Fan]

I'm pretty sick of the gun grabbers thinking registrations, mag capacity and the way a gun looks is going to change anything about illegal guns. Especially, from those who know absolutely nothing about guns.

In the case of clips or mags, it probably won't change things in the sense it will stop a mass shooting but if 1 mass gun shooting has a guy using a 10 bullet clip as opposed to a 30 and because of that 1 less person(or more) gets killed(because they either had a chance to tackle the guy while switching clips or had a chance to escape while he was switching the clip), the law would have worked and be a huge success in my books.

The pro-gun side hasn't given me any good reason to think we need 30 bullet clips. All we get is

1. What if we go to war with the government arguments(from the extreme fringe of the pro gun side)
2. What if a housewife needs 30 bullets to kill the person robing her house or raping her(completely ignoring how troublesome it would be for anybody male or female to gain access to that gun first before the killer could shoot them)
3. It's not going to stop people from having 30 bullet clips, so what's the use

 

[Hotwire]

There are age restrictions to buying guns. In my state to buy a firearm you have to be 18
Per 18 Pa.C.S. § 6110.1 (Possession of firearm by minor), the minimum age to possess a firearm is 18 with two exceptions:

1. The minor is under the supervision of a parent, grandparent, legal guardian, or an adult acting with the expressed consent of the minor's parent or legal guardian and involved in lawful activity.
2. The minor is lawfully involved in hunting or trapping activities.

A lot of states do require safety course. PA is a voluntary safety course which when I was in junior high was offered called the PA Hunter's Safety Course. Every gun club around me offers pistol training classes. I have no problem with that, but it's still not stopping illegal guns.



I'm pretty sick of the gun grabbers thinking registrations, mag capacity and the way a gun looks is going to change anything about illegal guns. Especially, from those who know absolutely nothing about guns.

That's one state that sort of promotes what I was getting at.

Again, what would you do to get the illegal guns?

 

[Kable24]

30 bullet clips.

I rest my case on the uneducated.

Please tell me how troublesome it is to grab your gun with a "30 bullet clip" Is it harder to get to than your 10 or 20 "bullet clip"?

 

[SV Fan]

30 bullet clips.

I rest my case on the uneducated.

Please tell me how troublesome it is to grab your gun with a "30 bullet clip" Is it harder to get to than your 10 or 20 "bullet clip"?

Sorry magazine, same argument(of coarse you don't respond to my main point) . Simple fact is we don't need any gun accessory that can shoot 30 bullets without reloading but going by your logic because I don't know the difference of the wording of magazine or clip somehow my point of 30 bullets being fired without reloading is invalid.

So basically whatever it's called whatever allows somebody to shot more then 10 bullets without reloading should be banned

 

[Kable24]

That's one state that sort of promotes what I was getting at.

Again, what would you do to get the illegal guns?

I don't know, but creating laws that only hurt law abiding gun owners isn't the answer. People say, you don't need a 30 round magazine. Who the hell are you to tell people what they need to defend themselves and their family? Liberals are always the ones saying, don't tell me what I can and can't do, but are the first to say I can't defend myself with an AR15 or a Glock with a high capacity magazine. that's BS.

What needs to be done is get stricter on crime. The Police and all involved in the system need to get tough and enforce laws and not pull punches with criminals.
I think it's proven that stricter gun laws don't help. Look at Chicago.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/chicago-homicide-rate-wor_n_1602692.html

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Sorry magazine, same argument(of coarse you don't respond to my main point) . Simple fact is we don't need any gun that can shoot 30 bullets without reloading but going by your logic because I don't know the difference of the wording of magazine or clip somehow my point of 30 bullets being fired without reloading is invalid.

So basically whatever it's called whatever allows somebody to shot more then 10 bullets without reloading should be banned

Why 10 rounds? I don't get these arbitrary numbers that people want for magazine capacity limits.

 

[redhawk23]

I didn't say not do anything about illegal guns. The bill for universal background check isn't going to stop illegal guns. What is so hard to comprehend that criminals aren't going to bother with background checks?

I laugh when anti gunners bring up the whole "well we have to register our vehicles", but when pro gunners bring up the cars kill more than guns, it's BS? Talk about a bunch of hypocrites.

Guns are literally designed to kill.

And its not just a matter of "criminals." The mentally ill don't need to be buying bushmasters either. The man who shot Senator Giffords had a history of mental health problems, a medical record, and yet was able to buy his weapons.

 

[redhawk23]

I don't know, but creating laws that only hurt law abiding gun owners isn't the answer. People say, you don't need a 30 round magazine. Who the hell are you to tell people what they need to defend themselves and their family? Liberals are always the ones saying, don't tell me what I can and can't do, but are the first to say I can't defend myself with an AR15 or a Glock with a high capacity magazine. that's BS.

What needs to be done is get stricter on crime. The Police and all involved in the system need to get tough and enforce laws and not pull punches with criminals.
I think it's proven that stricter gun laws don't help. Look at Chicago.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/chicago-homicide-rate-wor_n_1602692.html

First of all "don't tell me what to do is the Conservative mantra and yet they love telling people how they should live their lives and who they should live it with.

And strict gun laws in a single city are of course not going to do much when you can just buy them in Wisconsin. Nor are gun laws the only factor there. Chicago has a racial, immigration and economic makeup that is fairly distinct.

 

[Kable24]

Sorry magazine, same argument(of coarse you don't respond to my main point) . Simple fact is we don't need any gun accessory that can shoot 30 bullets without reloading but going by your logic because I don't know the difference of the wording of magazine or clip somehow my point of 30 bullets being fired without reloading is invalid.

So basically whatever it's called whatever allows somebody to shot more then 10 bullets without reloading should be banned

There is a difference between clip and magazine. I suggest you educate yourself on the subject if you plan to debate it. As for the 10 round mag or a 30 round mag who are you to tell me how to defend myself? Once again it won't stop a criminal if mag capacity is banned. You're just hurting the person who wants to defend themselves.
I'm not military trained, but I can reload a mag in my pistols and rifles in about a second. I can do it faster if I tape two mags together. A high cap mag means nothing. It's just something that people who are clueless and follow the the rest of the lemmings cling onto.

 

[SV Fan]

Why 10 rounds? I don't get these arbitrary numbers that people want for magazine capacity limits.

Anytime somebody has to reload a gun that gives people a chance to either sneak away or a chance to tackle that person. I honestly don't see any need to have 30 rounds to shoot at one given point.

As for picking an arbitrary number that is a fair question which I also ask why is it currently 30 and not 50 or 25, etc. While I think 10 will still do damage, I just think it will cut down on mass gun shootings damage. Is it a perfect solution, No, but it's an improvement without fully take away the use of a clip in general.

 

[Kable24]

Anytime somebody has to reload a gun that gives people a chance to either sneak away or a chance to tackle that person. I honestly don't see any need to have 30 rounds to shoot at one given point.

As for picking an arbitrary number that is a fair question which I also ask why is it currently 30 and not 50 or 25, etc. While I think 10 will still do damage, I just think it will cut down on mass gun shootings damage. Is it a perfect solution, No, but it's an improvement without fully take away the use of a clip in general.

Well to help you out pistols obviously vary in mag capacity. My 1911 can only hold 8 rounds because the mag is a single stack. I have seen 10 round single stacks for them though. My other two pistols are double stacked. One being 12 rounds and the other 17. They came with those mags and they don't make smaller ones for them, so they are standard capacity. A Glock can have a 33 round magazine.

Most AR15 style rifles come with a 30 round standard magazine. you can buy 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 45, 50, 75 and 100 round magazines for them. 30 is standard though.

 

[redhawk23]

Also, yes more people die from traffic related deaths than gun deaths. But guess what? When there are designs of cars or features that contribute to an increasing number of deaths, we regulate them.

There are many potential features of cars that are not "street legal." How dare anyone tell you that you don't need a nitris oxide engine to get to work!

Also, in places where there are a lot of intersections and exits, speed limits are slower. How dare anyone tell you that you can't drive 80mph down main street!

Also, who exactly would this 30 round magazine be protecting you from? Are the Hell's Angels coming to your town to rape your churches and burn your women? Do you really feel safe? In a situation that would even prompt the need for such weapons, how well do you think you'd realistically fare?

Also, how goes the regulation of that well regulated militia?

The problem with guns isn't even the guns themselves but the masculine frontier fantasy that leads people to think they're really even necessary.

 

[SV Fan]

There is a difference between clip and magazine. I suggest you educate yourself on the subject if you plan to debate it.

I don't know the name of every part in a car engine does that mean I shouldn't have an opinion on cars?

As for the 10 round mag or a 30 round mag who are you to tell me how to defend myself? Once again it won't stop a criminal if mag capacity is banned. You're just hurting the person who wants to defend themselves.

Just out of curiosity how many times have a bunch of people come to your house that you needed that 30 magazine clip and you went all Rambo on them. I'm going to take a wild guess here and say 0.

it should be pointed out if somebody pulls a gun on you, you are more likely to be shot if you pull a gun out yourself then if you don't have a gun. Personally I will play the odds since I value my life then over a piece of property.

I'm not military trained, but I can reload a mag in my pistols and rifles in about a second. I can do it faster if I tape two mags together. A high cap mag means nothing. It's just something that people who are clueless and follow the the rest of the lemmings cling onto.

It should be pointed out in the case of the Gaby Giffords shooting, 30 bullets were shot then they tackled the guy when he reloaded. In Newton 11 kids snuck away while the guy was reloading. In both cases magazines with less bullets could have and most likely would have prevented more deaths. Maybe you think your rights are more important then those people who might have not been killed if those killers had smaller magazines but I disagree.

 

[Kable24]

yet people still have NOS in their cars and people still street race

People still go 80 in a 55.

We have gun laws and rules to follow. I have my conceal carry. I don't go waving it around the grocery store when someone takes the last Tombstone pizza. I follow the law when it comes to my conceal carry. As do the millions of other legal gun owners.

So the next time someone goes 80mph in a 55mph and kills a family are you going to demand that all cars have a governor that doesn't allow them to go above 55mph or do you want to punish the one who did it?

That's how legal gun owners feel. We are being blamed for the actions of a few people. it's not fair and it isn't right.

I'm so sick of defending my hobby and my rights to people who fear guns, who know jack **** about guns, yet have the audacity to lecture me about them.

 

[redhawk23]

By all means, stop illegal guns. Stop the **** out of them. But trying to get to them through the legally purchased and owned ones is like chasing a getaway car using a tricycle. If they're lucky, after the crime has been committed and they somehow capture the firearm used...hey, they'll know who bought it IF it was even bought and registered legally. Which will somehow unlock the time-travel portal they've been developing all these years so that they can go back in time and prevent the crime. And for every captured gun used in a crime that can be legally tracked like that, three untraceable illegal guns out there that haven't been caught just......evaporate....leaving but a few scant thousand for each legal one.

Of course, the heart is in the right place to want to do something, anything, to help prevent gun crime and tragedies like what happened in that school. But what is ridiculous is just how clueless and ineffective gun law propositions like these are. No the answer is not 'just do nothing'...it is 'come up with something', for pete's sake, and not this 'sticks and stones' approach that 'anti-gunners' continue to throw out there. It's almost as if they know it won't actually do anything, but at least they tried. They need to do a lot more homework. And each one of these instances is a chortling win for well-informed gun defenders. The two sides need to come together firstly so that those who are anti-gun are better informed, and secondly so that gun defenders accept their share of responsibility in protecting the well-being of their fellow citizens from gun crime...and not just by carrying themselves.

Okay, lets do. But which ones should be illegal? What should be the legal channels in which to obtain a weapon?

That's pretty much what this debate is.

 

[redhawk23]

yet people still have NOS in their cars and people still street race

People still go 80 in a 55.

We have gun laws and rules to follow. I have my conceal carry. I don't go waving it around the grocery store when someone takes the last Tombstone pizza. I follow the law when it comes to my conceal carry. As do the millions of other legal gun owners.

So the next time someone goes 80mph in a 55mph and kills a family are you going to demand that all cars have a governor that doesn't allow them to go above 55mph or do you want to punish the one who did it?

That's how legal gun owners feel. We are being blamed for the actions of a few people. it's not fair and it isn't right.

I'm so sick of defending my hobby and my rights to people who fear guns, who know jack **** about guns, yet have the audacity to lecture me about them.

And people still murder people. People still steal things. Companies still commit fraud. Just because a law is broken doesn't mean it doesn't have damn good reason to be a law. It doesn't mean it shouldn't be enforced.

 

[Kable24]

I don't know the name of every part in a car engine does that mean I shouldn't have an opinion on cars?



Just out of curiosity how many times have a bunch of people come to your house that you needed that 30 magazine clip and you went all Rambo on them. I'm going to take a wild guess here and say 0.

it should be pointed out if somebody pulls a gun on you, you are more likely to be shot if you pull a gun out yourself then if you don't have a gun. Personally I will play the odds since I value my life then over a piece of property.



It should be pointed out in the case of the Gaby Giffords shooting, 30 bullets were shot then they tackled the guy when he reloaded. In Newton 11 kids snuck away while the guy was reloading. In both cases magazines with less bullets could have and most likely would have prevented more deaths. Maybe you think your rights are more important then those people who might have not been killed if those killers had smaller magazines but I disagree.

1. No, but you familiarized yourself with a car to use it. I'm not a gunsmith, but I educated myself on the workings of a gun.

2. I'm not sure where you are going with that. I have no desire to "go all Rambo" as you put it on anyone. Yet, I don't want to be short of what I need if a situation ever presented itself.

3. I have no comment on this because if the gun is already pulled on me and it's just me and the one pointing the gun at me any sudden movement to go for a gun is going to get me shot. I'm not stupid. It's knowing when to react.