Democrats' first target - Hi-Cap Mags.

[Al Doggity]

Meanwhile, some of these same liberal babies promote hip-hop music with such lyrics as.....

Who's that creeping in my window? POOOOOW!!! Nobody, now!" - Goodie Mob, "Cell Therapy" (featuring current judge of "The Voice", Cee-Lo Green)

  Are the hip hip community known as strong proponents of gun control?

[The True Adonis]

Revolutionary War Cap and Ball Pistol packing Serious Fire Power@ 1:32 in.

[Emmortal]

Glad to know this tragedy is an important step forward for their cause.  

How long does it take to switch a magazine? A good grunt can do it in a couple seconds. Hell, you don't even have to drop the weapon from your shoulder to change it.

I can't imagine it takes all that much longer for an untrained person to do it. It wouldn't have made a difference at all in this shooting, but man do we need to stick the blame on something.  

With training you can swap out a 10 round mag in about a second.

[Straw Man]

Lulz that you're ok with 3 10-round magazines but not ok with 1 30-round magazine, cause it somehow makes a difference. 30 rounds is 30 rounds.

It takes a whopping 3-5 seconds to do a magazine switch depending on how good you are. I'm sure those 3-5 seconds would have made a huge difference in the survival rate at Sandy Hook.  

yep, perfectly fine with it

as I've said before, the idea (not yours) that if we can't be perfect then we should do nothing is total nonsense

If someone is shooting up a crowd and he needs 5 seconds or more to change clips that 5 second you can get away or try to stop the guy

[Straw Man]

ROFLMAO exactly.  They have no clue what they are talking about.  The word is scary to them and thats it.  A Pistol or shotgun can easily be more deadly than an "Assault" rifle.

how many rounds in a pistol or shotgun .... a heck of a lot less than 30

[tonymctones]

yep, perfectly fine with it

as I've said before, the idea (not yours) that if we can't be perfect then we should do nothing is total nonsense

If someone is shooting up a crowd and he needs 5 seconds or more to change clips that 5 second you can get away or try to stop the guy

The liberal idea of acting simply for the sake of acting is how we ended up with gems like obamacare...

5 seconds? does the person have to load the magazine first?

let me guess you either have never shot a gun or have only shot other ppls guns?

[The True Adonis]

how many rounds in a pistol or shotgun .... a heck of a lot less than 30

Nope.

[The True Adonis]

[The True Adonis]

[Straw Man]

The liberal idea of acting simply for the sake of acting is how we ended up with gems like obamacare...

5 seconds? does the person have to load the magazine first?

let me guess you either have never shot a gun or have only shot other ppls guns?

I grew up in Texas and have shot guns hundreds if not thousands of time
I used to have a Glock which I could take apart and put back together very quickly (for some dumb reason I used to enjoy practising this)
I sold it years ago and don't have anything now though have no problem with gun ownership with some reasonable limits

[Straw Man]

Nope.

gee it's too bad that asshole didn't have a hundred round magazine

It comes in handy when trying to murder as many people as possible in a short time

[GigantorX]

Lulz that you're ok with 3 10-round magazines but not ok with 1 30-round magazine, cause it somehow makes a difference. 30 rounds is 30 rounds.

It takes a whopping 3-5 seconds to do a magazine switch depending on how good you are. I'm sure those 3-5 seconds would have made a huge difference in the survival rate at Sandy Hook.  

It's the basic mindset.

Lawmaker - "Childhood obesity and obesity in general is on the rise! What do we do? Uh, oh, uh, ban soft drinks over 160z in size, that should do it! Man, we are so smart!"

Person With Common Sense - "Uh, won't people just buy 2 16oz drinks instead?"

Lawmaker "Uh, uh, uh, uh......think of the children!"

It will do nothing, everyone knows it will do nothing but they have to do something....so they will ban them.

The last "Assault Rifle" ban did little to stop people from owning assault rifles.

Believe me, I am not of the mind that we should let anyone off the street purchase a rifle/handgun etc. But we need to acknowledge the reality of the present situation before making any moves.

[The True Adonis]

It's the basic mindset.

Lawmaker - "Childhood obesity and obesity in general is on the rise! What do we do? Uh, oh, uh, ban soft drinks over 160z in size, that should do it! Man, we are so smart!"

Person With Common Sense - "Uh, won't people just buy 2 16oz drinks instead?"

Lawmaker "Uh, uh, uh, uh......think of the children!"

It will do nothing, everyone knows it will do nothing but they have to do something....so they will ban them.

The last "Assault Rifle" ban did little to stop people from owning assault rifles.

Believe me, I am not of the mind that we should let anyone off the street purchase a rifle/handgun etc. But we need to acknowledge the reality of the present situation before making any moves.

I`m sick of this mentality and you know what, its coming more and more from the Democrats.  Especially when it comes to food.  They are complete morons.  I am sometimes ashamed that I even vote for any of them.

[Straw Man]

I`m sick of this mentality and you know what, its coming more and more from the Democrats.  Especially when it comes to food.  They are complete morons.  I am sometimes ashamed that I even vote for any of them.

I'm sick of the mentality that if we can't totally eradicate a problem then we should simply do nothing at all

why bother having drunk driving laws if we can't totally eradicate the problem of drunk drivers killing people

why bother having seat belts or airbags when we can't totally prevent people from dying in car accidents

same basic mindset

[GigantorX]

I'm sick of the mentality that if we can't totally eradicate an problem then we should simply do nothing at all

why bother having drunk driving laws if we can't totally eradicate the problem of drunk drivers killing people - May act as a deterrent.

why bother having seat belts or airbags when we can't totally prevent people from dying in car accidents - Lowers insurance costs and is proven to save countless lives.

same basic mindset

Banning hi capacity magazines will work just as well as banning 16oz soft drinks i.e. it won't do anything. Which is why banning those magazines is not the torch to carry. It's the easy thing to push and then pat yourself on the back for a job well done.

-Just because some lunatic goes to the store and finds that he can't purchase a hi-cap mag doesn't mean he isn't going to go on his rampage. Now, having a better tripwire for identifying mentally ill people and treating them before they get to the point of wanting to purchase the hi-cap mag would be a far better course to pursue. But it's hard and not sexy enough.

[Straw Man]

Banning hi capacity magazines will work just as well as banning 16oz soft drinks i.e. it won't do anything. Which is why banning those magazines is not the torch to carry. It's the easy thing to push and then pat yourself on the back for a job well done.

-Just because some lunatic goes to the store and finds that he can't purchase a hi-cap mag doesn't mean he isn't going to go on his rampage. Now, having a better tripwire for identifying mentally ill people and treating them before they get to the point of wanting to purchase the hi-cap mag would be a far better course to pursue. But it's hard and not sexy enough.

didn't the shooter in AZ have a high capacity magazine when he killed 6 people and wounded 19 others....and was then stopped by others only when trying to reload

wouldn't it be likely a LOT less people would be dead and wounded if he only had 10 or 12 round magazine instead of 31  or whatever he had

again, back to the mindset that if you can't totally prevent the event then why even bother trying to make it less likely to be as deadly

[The True Adonis]

I'm sick of the mentality that if we can't totally eradicate a problem then we should simply do nothing at all

why bother having drunk driving laws if we can't totally eradicate the problem of drunk drivers killing people

why bother having seat belts or airbags when we can't totally prevent people from dying in car accidents

same basic mindset

1. We already are doing enough as far as guns are concerned.

2. You want a solution to every single problem coming from someone else (the government), usually in the form of restriction (soda ban), rather than take responsibility for yourself (because you are obese) so you can feel good about "solving" a problem whilst inadvertently (or not) taking away somebody elses freedom?

3. What does an airbag or seatbelt have to do with anything?  I personally don`t think you should be required to wear one, it should be a personal choice whether or not to do so.  I can still buy cars without seat belts or airbags if I want.  I used to drive a 1959 Cadillac Coupe Deville as my primary car and it had neither. (it did have nice Power Windows and Air Conditioning though!)

[Shockwave]

Banning hi capacity magazines will work just as well as banning 16oz soft drinks i.e. it won't do anything. Which is why banning those magazines is not the torch to carry. It's the easy thing to push and then pat yourself on the back for a job well done.

-Just because some lunatic goes to the store and finds that he can't purchase a hi-cap mag doesn't mean he isn't going to go on his rampage. Now, having a better tripwire for identifying mentally ill people and treating them before they get to the point of wanting to purchase the hi-cap mag would be a far better course to pursue. But it's hard and not sexy enough.

Classic treating the symptom rather than the problem.

[The True Adonis]

Banning hi capacity magazines will work just as well as banning 16oz soft drinks i.e. it won't do anything. Which is why banning those magazines is not the torch to carry. It's the easy thing to push and then pat yourself on the back for a job well done.

-Just because some lunatic goes to the store and finds that he can't purchase a hi-cap mag doesn't mean he isn't going to go on his rampage. Now, having a better tripwire for identifying mentally ill people and treating them before they get to the point of wanting to purchase the hi-cap mag would be a far better course to pursue. But it's hard and not sexy enough.

With those 3D printers out now, someone could easily make High Capacity Mags all day long.

[Straw Man]

1. We already are doing enough as far as guns are concerned.

2. You want a solution to every single problem coming from someone else (the government), usually in the form of restriction (soda ban), rather than take responsibility for yourself (because you are obese) so you can feel good about "solving" a problem whilst inadvertently (or not) taking away somebody elses freedom?

3. What does an airbag or seatbelt have to do with anything?  I personally don`t think you should be required to wear one, it should be a personal choice whether or not to do so.  I can still buy cars without seat belts or airbags if I want.  I used to drive a 1959 Cadillac Coupe Deville as my primary car and it had neither. (it did have nice Power Windows and Air Conditioning though!)

1. says who

2. I never said that and nothing in anything I've written on this board would lead anyone who is paying attention to reach that conclusion

3.  It is an example to illustrate the mindset that surrounds this issue that if you can't have "perfection" then it's futile to do ANYTHING

[Shockwave]

3.  It is an example to illustrate the mindset that surrounds this issue that if you can't have "perfection" then it's futile to do ANYTHING

I don't think anyone thinks that, mostly its about focusing it in the right direction, which isn't the firearms themselves, it's about identifying the people that are going to do this kind of shit BEFORE It happens.

[The True Adonis]

1. says who

2. I never said that and nothing in anything I've written on this board would lead anyone who is paying attention to reach that conclusion

3.  It is an example to illustrate the mindset that surrounds this issue that if you can't have "perfection" then it's futile to do ANYTHING

1. Says the Supreme Court and all of the statistics involving Firearms.  Violence with Firearms is on a decline and has been for a long time.  Gun Bans do not work, Chicago, and are Unconstitutional in my opinion- and most likely in the Supreme Courts opinion as seen in the ruling of District of Columbia v. Heller in 2010, and any upcoming rulings regarding the 2nd Amendment.

2. Anytime you want a restriction, whatever it may be, you will limit someone elses freedom, whomever that may be.

3. Who has an "All or nothing" mindset? There is no perfect solution for anything.

[Straw Man]

1. Says the Supreme Court and all of the statistics involving Firearms.  Violence with Firearms is on a decline and has been for a long time.  Gun Bans do not work, Chicago, and are Unconstitutional in my opinion- and most likely in the Supreme Courts opinion as seen in the ruling of District of Columbia v. Heller in 2010, and any upcoming rulings regarding the 2nd Amendment.

2. Anytime you want a restriction, whatever it may be, you will limit someone elses freedom, whomever that may be.

3. Who has an "All or nothing" mindset? There is no perfect solution for anything.

1. We had a assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004 - was it ever challenged in the SC (I don't know which is why I'm asking you)

2. We limit peoples freedom all the time for many different reasons.  How about speed limits to start.  Shouldn't I be allowed to drive as fast as I want and anywhere that I want?

3.  The all or nothing mindset is that if we can't totally prevent this type of event (or anything) then we shouldn't bother doing anything.   You can see examples in this very thread

[Al Doggity]

I don't think anyone thinks that, mostly its about focusing it in the right direction, which isn't the firearms themselves, it's about identifying the people that are going to do this kind of shit BEFORE It happens.

This is the point I"m getting at in the other thread. Virtually any form of gun control is considered a violation of civil liberties by ... some. The three examples I gave in that thread were extreme examples of the most obvious types of gun control that should be instituted. But even mental health precautions were fought by the right at one point. We know that gun show sales account for a sizable percentage of guns that are used for illegal activity, but the right is so fervent about not closing up that issue, it's crazy.

[The True Adonis]

1. We had a assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004 - was it ever challenged in the SC (I don't know which is why I'm asking you)

2. We limit peoples freedom all the time for many different reasons.  How about speed limits to start.  Shouldn't I be allowed to drive as fast as I want and anywhere that I want?

3.  The all or nothing mindset is that if we can't totally prevent this type of event (or anything) then we shouldn't bother doing anything.   You can see examples in this very thread

1. I was able to get an "Assault" Weapon in 2001.  An SKS with a Bayonet and a Folding Stock, no problem despite a ban.  It was never challenged, but I am pretty confident that  District of Columbia v. Heller and especially McDonald v. Chicago, both cases decided in 2010, would void any new Assault Weapon Ban.

2. Sometimes we do limit freedoms and it works, and a lot of times it doesn`t.  Like the Chicago Handgun ban.


3. We shouldn`t do anything if we already know there is evidence that it is not going to work. (Previous Assault Weapon Ban, Handgun Ban etc.-  See Above Chart)