Welcome to the Political Forum.......thats pretty standard fair here

I did not portray you as an anti-gun extremist . Try to relax a bit.

Banning the number of bullets a gun can hold, pick a number, won't stop this sort of killing. Your rantings, although appealing to emotional liberals, which you don't like, don't belong in a well thought out debate in solving the problem.

FYI alot of people new this guy was a sociopath.

"I did not portray you as an anti-gun extremist ."

I said I was in favor of handguns and hunting rifles. You responded directky to my post by saying that banning all guns doesn't end gun violence. What other way can we take your reply, other than to infer that you think that my position is that all guns should be banned? To me, that's a radical position, and it's not even close to what I said.

"Banning the number of bullets a gun can hold, pick a number, won't stop this sort of killing"

Again, it seems like you are putting words in my mouth. I specifically said that banning these weapons would not eliminate these killing sprees. I did say this, see if you can respond to what I'm ACTUALLY SAYING...

Banning assault rifles and extended magazines will not put an end to these killing sprees. They will make them less deadly, however. Because the more frequently a would-be mass murderer has to stop and re-load, the better the opportunity for potential victims to get away or subdue the attacker.

If banning extended magazines meant one less person in AZ would have been hurt or killed, to me it would be worth it. I can only assume you disagree (please say if I'm wrong).

Cars kill people, but I wouldn't say ban cars, because cars add so much utility and value to our lives. I don't see how you can say the same thing about assault rifles and extended magazines. I have never, not once, heard of a person successfully defending themselves with these tools, in a situation where a normal firearm would not have sufficed. From what I can see, the only benefit is that some people get a kick out of owning them. And I have to say I can see why, they are fun to shoot. But I don't think that thrill is worth a single human life.

Jim, you pointed out that guys with small "weewee's" may contibute to the death of more 9 year olds. Now I know your trying to be funny, but that's the sort of extreme BS that hurts your cause.

Every gun I own is used for hunting so banning assault type weapons won't hurt me. It does however lead down a slippery slope. The problem wasn't the gun.

Cars are a bad example unless you want to say fast cars. That would be a proper analogy. How many HP would Jim allow. How about beer? Kills more 9 year olds then assault weapons. We have tough drunk driving laws to hep prevent more deaths. How about tougher gun crime laws? Not tougher gun laws.

We can make all sorts of thing illegal and save many lifes. Make a list for me.

It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.

Buckman, I keep answering your questions directly, and you keep dodging mine. It's not fair, and it's really tiresome.

As to your beer reference. My favorite meal in the world is beer and wings, I love it. That being the case, I feel that alcohol does way more harm than good for our society, and if there was a vote, I would support banning alcohol. Since I never abuse alcohol (no time for that), I would miss the occasional ice cold beer, but that's a small price to pay for saving many innocent lives.

Did I answer your question? Will you show me the same courtesy for once? I have a 2-part question.

(1) do you agree that extended magazines and assault rifles make it easier to kill large numbers of people in a shooting spree, compared to a pistol with a standfard magazine?

(2) if your answer to #1 is "no", forget it, we have nothing to discuss. However, if you answer "yes" to #1, here is #2. If the families of all the victims of the Arizona massacre asked you why we shouldn't ban extended magazines, what would you say to them?

Ben:
We should have the right to bear arms, 100%. There should be a limit though, IMHO

(1) Do you agree that a pistol with a standard magazine would have made it easier to kill three or four people in the Arizona shooting than using a knife?

(2) If your answer to #1 is "no", forget it, we have nothing to discuss. However, if you answer "yes" to #1, here is #2. If a pistol with a standard magazine had been used, and if the families of victims in such an Arizona shooting asked you why we shouldn't ban pistols with standard magazines, what would you say to them?

whut?

http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/2...ool-hottie.jpg

:hihi:

2A is not about duck hunting or any other "sporting purpose."

It is first and foremost an individual right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to enable citizens to rebel against a tyrannical government.

If the occasion calls for it ... I'd rather be rebelling with 30 round (standard capacity mags) rather than 10 rounders. :grins:

The Kentucky rifle, instrumental in helping colonialists prevail over those nasty Brits, was the assault weapon of its day.

The founding fathers today wouldn't blink at the private ownership of polymer frame striker-fired semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines or repeating rifles with detachable magazines.

Wings aren't healthy either, maybe you should vote to ban those too.
Do you honest think banning alcohol would make things better? Didn't seem to work during prohibition........

It's not the gun, its the idiot who is killing people.

THANK YOU!!! :want:

"Wings aren't healthy either, maybe you should vote to ban those too."

Apples and oranges. If I die from eating wings, I'm not taking out a room full of kids.

"Do you honest think banning alcohol would make things better? Didn't seem to work during prohibition........"

Again, apples and oranges. Before prohibition, not every family owned 2 cars, so there weren't nearly as many deaths from drunk driving. Instead of asking these meaningless "gotcha" questions, how about answering one of my own? Do you really think, if we banned alcohol, that more people would be killed from illegal booze trade, then are saved by lack of drunk drivers? Do you really believe that?

"It's not the gun, its the idiot who is killing people"

Once again, you regurgitate the NRA line without answering the question I'm asking. You are right, guns are an inanimate object, and can't hurt people on their own. However, don't extended magazines and assault rifles make it EASIER to kill MORE people? Can one of you please answer that simple question? Am I going too fast for you?

If automatic weapons and extended magazines don't make it easier to kill more people, I wonder why this guy didn't bring a muzzle loader to trhe Safeway.

We are both tired so here ya go.
1) Hypothetical, but yes it could. 2 "standard" guns could kill as many. 2 shooters x 2 guns even more etc. etc. get my point????

2) TTYL. Stupid question

What the hell were we talking about????:drool:

I'll second this. These guys on both sides calling each other names is childish. I guess there is no respect either? these are our leaders?

Like I always say - what the heck are voting for? they all get in office
and do what they want, not what we want.

I think you're spot on. The arguments about "legitimate" uses and "needs" for private citizens owning a gun rarely discuss this point (except by those who are referred to as "anti-government"), and these arguments are diversions from the true intentions of the Second Ammendment. The greatest fear of those that rebelled against British rule and created a free society with a Constitution to guarantee that freedom--their greatest fear was a tyrannical government that would take away that freedom. The creation of this country was precisely so that its individual citizens would have that freedom. And the Constitution which took over a dozen years to evolve from the First Continental Congress to ratification, and was hotly debated, wasn't about wasting precious words over hunting and sport issues. The Second Amendment stands out, like the other Amendments, and the brief enumerations of power, as as one of the rights that protected the people from tyranny, not some minor right to personal pleasure.

And you are exactly right--the founders meant by "Arms" weapons that matched the militias and the government troops of the Revolution. How else would they be of use to defend against tyrannical enemies, foreign or domestic. And for those who think the Constitution should change with evolution of technology, that's true not in regard to the Constitutional principle but in applications--such as weaponry. As weapons of military personnel become more deadly, so too must the private citizen have a right to match them.

And gun rights people, and tea partiers, and Sarah Palins, and right wing talk radio, are not anti-government. They are portrayed that way as talking points to paint them as radical and dangerous. They are all pro-goverment, not anti-government. They are pro good, Constitutional government. And that is not radical. And it is only dangerous to those who are against the Constitution as it was written.

Right.
I need a tank, a rocket propelled grenade, and an AR15 or 6, plus the latest in non-lethal weapons. Oh and chemical weapons. What aisle at Walmart has Mustard Gas again?

The household cleaner and medicine aisles...but the directions are on another board... :rotf2:

Aisle 6 in Newport, next to the 30/06, 367, 22 m and the 3000 boxes of 12 gauge #2 buckshot.
But behind the anti-personnel frags.

Somebody say something about extended?

To begin with, the milita and government troops of revolutionary time did not have, as individual soldiers, individual canons, howitzers, battleships, or any other outsized armor that an individual could carry. Neither do the modern day soldiers have their individual tanks, nor carry chemical weapons, nor any such other ridiculous etceteras. I suppose, if you were the incredible hulk, you might be able to keep and bear some monstrous weapon. I suppose, if you could manage to drive a tank on public roads without destroying the pavement or obstructing traffic, it might be OK. Various public ordinances against hazardous materials and property destroying vehicles might restrict your ownership to some underground bunker. As you say, availability would severly, if not completely deter you from not only finding such goodies, but very few could afford them. I don't fear law abiding citizens who believe in Constitutional goverment possessing big, bad weapons. Why do you? A criminal, a psycho, on the other hand, with a simple knife, is a terrifying prospect.

but then how would you remain carbon neutral and envionmentally friendly ?

“Instead of asking these meaningless "gotcha" questions, how about answering one of my own? Do you really think, if we banned alcohol, that more people would be killed from illegal booze trade, then are saved by lack of drunk drivers? Do you really believe that?”

If we banned alcohol, Yes, I would agree that it would most likely reduce the amount of people killed from illegal booze. I’m in agreement with you but I don’t believe based off that that it should be banned. You have to look at the whole picture. In your argument, it sounds like you are saying that Alcohol is the common denominator and if it was removed from society the number of drunk driving accidents would be reduced (I agree). Distracted drivers (cell phone use/texting) is the number one cause of auto accidents in the US followed by speeding, DUI is third. So, if we make all possession and use of alcohol (even in a private home) illegal, we reduce the third leading cause of auto accident which reduces the number of deaths. Based off of that theory we should also make all possession and use of all cell phones (even in a private home) illegal. That would reduce the number one cause of auto accident since nobody would ever be in the situation of texting while driving. Again, base off that theory, the government should require all auto manufacturers to add governors to cars so they have a maximum speed limit. That would eliminate the number 2 cause of auto accidents, speeding. It’s not that I disagree with you, I just don’t think a very small number of the population’s actions should change the very large number of law abiding citizens.

“Once again, you regurgitate the NRA line without answering the question I'm asking. “

I’m not regurgitating anything. Those are my own thoughts and it’s how I personally feel. I’m not a member of the NRA and do not own a gun but feel strongly that that right shouldn’t be taken from me.

"You are right, guns are an inanimate object, and can't hurt people on their own. However, don't extended magazines and assault rifles make it EASIER to kill MORE people?"

Yea, they do. I never said they didn’t. I’m still not sure they should be banned completely. I have a friend (retired cop) that fishes Alaska every other year and gets dropped in the wilderness by a bush plane and fishes for a week before they come to pick him up. He brings an extended magazine pistol as well as a 50 caliber to protect himself from an attacking bear. Why should his right be taken away? I’d be interested to know what the percentage is of people that own these things that commit a crime with them. I honestly don’t know the answer. If it’s very high, maybe you have a point, if is very low then the law abiding citizens should not be stripped of the right to own. (again, these are my own thoughts, not “regurgitation”)

"Am I going too fast for you?"

No, not at all but thanks for your concern. That’s a kind of question that brings no value at all to your points. It’s counterproductive and comes across as elitist IMO. Why degrade your posts with that?

"If automatic weapons and extended magazines don't make it easier to kill more people, I wonder why this guy didn't bring a muzzle loader to Safeway."

I never said it doesn’t make it easier. But he could have hurt even more people if he drove a car straight through the crowd. We are normal level thinking people and can’t understand what went this lunatic’s head.

He pulled that line again? That's twice in two days.

I don't know why anyone needs 30 cans of Budweiser in one box....

banning alcohol worked out great for the Kennedys..........

Somehow I knew this thread would hit rock bottom if I just stayed away.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes, rock bottom and big guns :uhuh:

That doesn't absolve you...well, perhaps just a bit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device