Gun Legislation

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Sorry Bruce the guns don’t kill people, people kill people is very convenient, but doesn’t address the ease at which these either mentally or socially bankrupt individuals can obtain weapons capable of killing dozens in seconds. We have an equal number now bring killed by domestic terror than radical Islamic terror.
I find that much like the emotionally reactionary charged left that tries to make the president complicit accusing him of racism in these awful shooting events accusing him of racism in handling the border crisis, the media in the sensationalism of this news brings too much attention to it in their twisted spin which makes them complicit planting seeds in sick peoples' minds to find an easy way to kill so many in such a short amount of time. The more it happens, the more normalized it becomes to the point of numbing which is really sad. "Equal number"? you want to talk statistics? I can give actual factual statistics that will open you mind and see closer to the truth about so called gun violence. Convenience has nothing to do with it. What you sheep believe is if the tool was not in existence, then there would not be victims, that is fantasy land false promises of in the name of safety from leaders like Maura Healy. Background checks already exist.
Keep making more laws to infringe law abiding people and more and more criminals will continue to avoid those same laws. Get it?
To suggest the evil Dems are coming for your guns is nuts, go count how many of those evil Dems are avid hunters or handgun owners. The number of nut jobs isn’t going down and making it more difficult if not impossible for troubled people or someone with an online agenda from being able to purchase makes sense.
I did not suggest that Bob. In fact of the last few presidents, Obama passed less gun control than the conservatives so I realize it is not just the Democrats who pass gun control. But you can't tell me there are not progressive Dems who have actually said they are for banning guns. Gun control for politicians is not about guns, it is about control and the sooner you realize what they are doing, the better off we will all be.
Nutjobs also use other inanimate objects to main and kill yet we do not ban those things. What gives you or I the right to dictate what anyone can choose to own to defend themselves? None of any of the firearms my family own are a threat to anybody.

I have no issue with legal gun ownership, but I also don’t see a need for assault rifles, or at least magazines with the capacity to kill so many in do little time.
OK, you and many others don't see the need. Well then, people like you JimW, etc. need to get informed then. You don't hear about incidents like this one?https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/2...ers-with-ar-15
You try taking on a group of home invaders with a revolver or pistol and see where it gets you, dead most likely. That AR-15 semi automatic (not an Assault Rifle) saved this guys' life.
Or the many more examples that happen and it does not fit the left medias' narrative so the sheep just go along with the views they are told and fed by the ultra rich who run the country. How about the church shooting in Texas that was stopped by a law abidding citizen neighbor who prevented further deaths( and if he had his magazines already loaded would have gotten there faster and prevented more) ?

You're entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong it is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nobody limits you to how many golf clubs you can own, yet they are also used to kill as well, not just hit a white ball. I use tools every day. I can choose to own what I want. Don't blame the tool or dictate what tool people in a free country can choose to own.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Nobody limits you to how many golf clubs you can own, yet they are also used to kill as well, not just hit a white ball. I use tools every day. I can choose to own what I want. Don't blame the tool or dictate what tool people in a free country can choose to own.

slipknot, i’m a pretty conservative republican.

i believe that nothing will
eliminate violence, because the underlying problem is us. you’re right, the gun is an inanimate object. but are you telling me that if Adam Lanza went to Sandy Hook elementary school with a golf
club,,he would have killed as many kids as he did? Come on.

i find it difficult to discuss economic issues rationally with liberals, they have a hard time being rational. conservatives, in my opinion, can be equally irrational on this issue.

if i say “maybe high capacity magazines should be banned”, it’s not a valid argument to say that such a ban wouldn’t have stopped Timothy McVeigh. No one is saying gun control will reduce gun violence to zero. But maybe there are things that can help reduce the body count, and maybe we can do it without trampling on the constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

of course not Jim, don't be silly, leave that to the sheep.


ya maybe, that is a big maybe as far as not trampling. The constitution has been trampled almost to death

[Slipknot]

as far as red flag laws

it is a serious issue and they are subject to abuse

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

of course not Jim, don't be silly, leave that to the sheep.


ya maybe, that is a big maybe as far as not trampling. The constitution has been trampled almost to death

i hear you, it’s a very big maybe as far as reducing freedoms. i agree 100%. but dont we have to try something? we cant legislate behavior.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

OK, you and many others don't see the need. Well then, people like you JimW, etc. need to get informed then. You don't hear about incidents like this one?https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/2...ers-with-ar-15
You try taking on a group of home invaders with a revolver or pistol and see where it gets you, dead most likely. That AR-15 semi automatic (not an Assault Rifle) saved this guys' life.

I don't see anything in that article which indicates the ar-15 had any benefit over a handgun in the situation. I'd think in a cramped space you'd be better off with a handgun anyway.

And in a bit of irony the men were robbing his house because THEY KNEW HE HAD A LOT OF GUNS.

[JohnR]

Of Course Lanza, Roof, Johnson, Mateen, and the like had mental issues.

We don't need to stigmatize people that suffer from mental health problems, but we don';t need them to have access to firearms either.

Fix existing background checks so states can't block informatrion that would be entered into NICS.

My biggest issues on Red Flag and what make walk away from compromise here is that I believe it will just be a stepping stone for the Anti2A folks - you know, the ones that don't want to take your guns but want to ban them, tax them higher, ban ammunition, do this and do that, and then confiscate them (Wayne says they don't, BS).

If a Red Flag was passed, based on how previous big legislation is all screwed up, what loopholes will there be to classify large swaths of people as mentally ill (he voted for Trump, must be unwell, she listens to rap, must be unwell, Timmy thinks there should be less government, he must be unwell).

There needs to be clearly defined rules about how due process is handled, sunsets, unbiased arbitration between parties.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't see anything in that article which indicates the ar-15 had any benefit over a handgun in the situation. I'd think in a cramped space you'd be better off with a handgun anyway.

And in a bit of irony the men were robbing his house because THEY KNEW HE HAD A LOT OF GUNS.

Not many handguns have a capacity of 30 or 40 when time is the essence. You may not have seen anything in the article but facts are facts.

All the more reason to be vigilant and able to defend yourself when there are criminals bold enough to try to rob you, not ironic at all. So now you understand why those NY permit holders whose names were made public in an article years ago were upset. A little common sense goes a long way
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Not many handguns have a capacity of 30 or 40 when time is the essence. You may not have seen anything in the article but facts are facts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd be curious to know the frequency of guns used for home self defense with shots actually fired. It's got to be very low. I can't imagine even in the cases where it happens it's a protracted fight unless something else is going on, drug house, gang violence etc...

If I wanted to defend myself in a home I'd want a pump shotgun or maybe a revolver that has little chance of malfunctioning.

I don't have any issue with gun ownership to protect the home, but there's no valid argument that an AR is necessary.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd be curious to know the frequency of guns used for home self defense with shots actually fired. It's got to be very low. I can't imagine even in the cases where it happens it's a protracted fight unless something else is going on, drug house, gang violence etc...

If I wanted to defend myself in a home I'd want a pump shotgun or maybe a revolver that has little chance of malfunctioning.

I don't have any issue with gun ownership to protect the home, but there's no valid argument that an AR is necessary.

It happens many times per year. While you cannot imagine it people, by them selves, have used their semi to fend off multiple people with hand guns. Sure, an MP5 would be better for home defense than an AR15, but those are illegal and highly hard to get the few places they are legal.

Then there are situations where the home owner was killed, maybe they would not have been had they been better armed.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd be curious to know the frequency of guns used for home self defense with shots actually fired. It's got to be very low. I can't imagine even in the cases where it happens it's a protracted fight unless something else is going on, drug house, gang violence etc...

If I wanted to defend myself in a home I'd want a pump shotgun or maybe a revolver that has little chance of malfunctioning.good common sense right there and practical

I don't have any issue with gun ownership to protect the home, but there's no valid argument that an AR is necessary.

that last word is where you fail to understand.
A cannon would do also but doesn't make much sense.
Determined thieves are sometimes hard to chase away or kill with 6 shots when you are outnumbered.

It's a God given right, not a question of necessary

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

that last word is where you fail to understand.
A cannon would do also but doesn't make much sense.
Determined thieves are sometimes hard to chase away or kill with 6 shots when you are outnumbered.

It's a God given right, not a question of necessary

Cannons are hard to maneuver and do a number on wood floors.

If having an assault weapon is a god given right why stop there? More firepower the better.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

Cannons are hard to maneuver and do a number on wood floors.

If having an assault weapon is a god given right why stop there? More firepower the better.

Not many cannon in the neighborhood to worry about, there are people with illegal guns, however. It is necessary to have something approaching necessary levels of home defense that might be brought against you and yours.

The right is for self defense with something you feel reasonable and legal, not what someone - you for example - to decide what is acceptable.

So the problem is a small number of bad individuals per year doing horrific things. Yet you and others like you in gun control, want to blame everyone except the bad individual doing bad things.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

If having an assault weapon is a god given right why stop there? More firepower the better.

I agree

[nightfighter]

Originally Posted by spence

Cannons are hard to maneuver and do a number on wood floors.

Not true.....