24 Hours Later, The Anti Gun Legislation Proposal

[tombogan03884]

I can take the heat.

"Shall not be infringed" still leaves room for reasonable restrictions. Somewhere between where DC and Chicago's present unreasonable restrictions are and Gerald Lee Loughner buying Ma Deuce at Wal-Mart no questions asked...

One problem with your reasoning Mike is that when you could buy guns any where, no questions asked, Back in the days when half the high school kids had a long gone in their vehicle for hunting before and after school, the crime rate was lower and we never had these mass shootings.
Another problem is that limited mag capacity has absolutely no effect on messed up people, nor would it lower the number of casualties.
The numerous mass stabbings in China prove that your idea is a waste of time and effort that only serves to erode further the rights of the citizen with out in any way addressing the actual problem of f*cked up people.
You have fallen into the same trap of uninformed shallow thinking, (forgetting about the stabbings in China, and gassing's in gun free Japan ) that the Brady bunch rely on.
Not a very hot flaming, I'll admit, but I couldn't figure a way to get any ad hominum attacks to fit in with the facts. I promise to try and do better next time  but you don't make a hobby out of riling me like FQ and TAB. You have to do your part to you know 

[MikeO]

Another problem is that limited mag capacity has absolutely no effect on messed up people, nor would it lower the number of casualties.
The numerous mass stabbings in China

JLL was stopped while reloading after firing 30+ rounds. The number of casualties would have been lower if he had been stopped while reloading after firing 10 rounds. Or six. Or five. Or two. Or One. The more chances to stop the nuts the better.

C'mon! Some want us to have just 10 for the same reason we want more; it does make a difference. If you were going for the record in the IMSC (Intl Mass Shooting Confederation) World Championships, would you want a an edged weapon or a gun? A handgun or a rifle? A lowcap gun or a hicap gun?

The numerous mass stabbings in China are no comparison at all. Show me the mass stabbings in China where one nut stabbing killed and wounded as many as Austin, San Ysidro, Killeen, VT, Ft Hood, Tucson, etc. Guns are better, and hicap guns are best for that kind of serious anti social work.

Seems I can recall more incidents where hicap mags made it easier for a nut to raise the innocent body count than I can where the good guy saved the day w his/her 11th round. I'm sure Jean Assam would have done just fine w a ten shooter. Or even a six shooter. Jim Cirillo did.

If any semiauto and/or hicap ban can get through the current House/Senate is a different story; I doubt they do. If they did, passing constitutional muster after that is yet another story. Are they reasonable restrictions per Heller? Beats me; only Justice Kennedy knows for sure?

[fightingquaker13]

Damn! And here I thought I liked to live dangerously. Thanks for the post. I hope you get more arguments than flames.

 Here's my take. Obviously a weapon with more rounds is more dangerous than the same weapon with fewer. That is why the military issues 30 rounders rather than 10 rounders. The question is, should civilians be limited? To me the answer is no, and oh yeah HELL NO. Once you start down that road, there is only one logical destination. No guns in civilian hands are safer than any guns. The point is, safer for whom? Safer for the state? You bet. Safer for the average civilian? I think not. The 2A isn't there to promote sport shooting. Its there to defend life, property and liberty. Once we allow the state to dictate what a "legitimate purpose" of a firearm is, we lose. We become phil in Oz. Yes there will be nut jobs, but they are far outnumbered by the number of folks who own weapons to defend themselves. I also firmly believe that you cannot trust a state that doesn't trust an armed populace. As far as I'm concerned the UK and Oz are free states only as long as the politicians allow it. I will not tolerate my freedoms being limited by a violent crackhead. We seem to have done it with the Patriot Act and the TSA. Damned if I'll put up with it because of some looney tunes in Arizona. Rant over.
FQ13

[TAB]

A 10 round mag would not have made much diffrence.  he still would have hit several people.


We were actually very lucky in this attack.  

he very well could have had a bomb on him and used that instead of a gun.

For less then $100 one can produce a several of them.

He could have very easily killed/wounded every one there.

Other then say black powder, there is not a hardware store in the US that does not have every thing, including the tools needed for some one to build a pipe bomb.  Any idiot with few mins and google can find out how to build one.  Chances are very good one could even produce black powder from supplys found at the hardware store.

[tt11758]

MICHAEL BLOOMBERG: The reality is that every single day 34 Americans are murdered by someone firing a gun and most of those guns are purchased or possessed illegally.

Ok, Bloomie, explain to me again how more laws are gonna solve the problem?

[Sponsor]

[tt11758]

Obviously a weapon with more rounds is more dangerous than the same weapon with fewer. FQ13

BULLSHIT!!!!!!  A gun, by itself, isn't dangerous, whether it holds one or one thousand rounds of ammo.  Danger enters the conversation ONLY when some asshat picks up that gun.  By agreeing that more rounds=more danger you play directly into the hands of the Brady Bunch, Ms. McCarthy, and all the other grabbers who have (as Ayoob so eloquently phrased it) been dancing in the blood of the Tucson victims.

Shame on you, FQ.  You know better.

[tt11758]

Isn't it ironic that, as President Reagan phrased it, gun control enacted in the aftermath of a crime such as this serves only to punish millions of people who had absolutely nothing to do with it.

[fightingquaker13]

BULLSHIT!!!!!!  A gun, by itself, isn't dangerous, whether it holds one or one thousand rounds of ammo.  Danger enters the conversation ONLY when some asshat picks up that gun.  By agreeing that more rounds=more danger you play directly into the hands of the Brady Bunch, Ms. McCarthy, and all the other grabbers who have (as Ayoob so eloquently phrased it) been dancing in the blood of the Tucson victims.

Shame on you, FQ.  You know better.

Chill TT. You know damn well what I was saying. Its why we like 17 rounds rather than 10 in our glocks. If the word dangerous bothers you, pick another. My point is that it isn't dangerous guns that are the problem its dangerous people. All the laws in the world won't stop them. Thus, I prefer more rather than less ammo if I have to deal with them.
FQ13

[tt11758]

Chill TT. You know damn well what I was saying. Its why we like 17 rounds rather than 10 in our glocks. If the word dangerous bothers you, pick another. My point is that it isn't dangerous guns that are the problem its dangerous people. All the laws in the world won't stop them. Thus, I prefer more rather than less ammo if I have to deal with them.
FQ13

The problem is that you seem to forget that what we say is SELDOM taken in it's totality.  Do you think it's beneath the Brady's or McCarthy to use an argument like, "Even posters on a pro-gun website agree that a gun with a large capacity clip (I use that word on purpose, since I'm quoting what the anti's MIGHT argue) is more dangerous than a gun with a smaller clip."?

All I'M saying is, let's not do or say anything that might HELP them strip our rights.

[MikeO]

Sorry, but Devil's advocate is way too much fun w this one!

This one nut did more damage, and did it easier and faster, all by himself than all nine men did at the OK Corral, and most people know why even if they won't admit it.  

Bringing up how fast JM can shoot his wheelguns, or how many TM killed w a bomb doesn't really do you any good. Might as well argue the jawbone of an ass is a deadlier weapon than a bomb or a Glock cuzz Samson killed a thousand w his.

If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns? So what!? London may have more shootings than before, but still waaaaay less than LA, DC, Chicago, or NYC.

The USA was safer before the NFA and GCA? So what! Get rid of them and most people know some parts of America will look more like Somalia than Switzerland.

With arguments like those, it's a wonder we aren't Canada already! When Giffords hears them again, I'm sure her NRA rating will go from a C to an A despite her recent discomfort. That's terrible, and that's what youse guys sound like to the millions of non gun owning voters...

The slope is slippery. If every tragedy is a reason for more gun control, then eventually there is nothing left to control.

Thank the deity of your choice for the SA and Heller! It's not perfect, but it's what we got so far. Reasonable restrictions are not infringements. Some restrictions are off the table, but not all of them. Time will tell?