Should guns large clip capabilites be banned?

1. 61

   movingoutposted 11 years ago

   In my opinion, yes! Should gun ownership be banned? NO Do people have the right to defend themselves and have hunting guns? Yes Should the average American be able to purchase assault weapons? No in my opinion! I see no reason to own a High powered assualt weapon.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      What is an assault weapon?  Any semi-automatic or automatic weapon?
      
      What is high powered?  Anything over 22 caliber?  30?
      
      What is a large clip?  Anything over 4 shells?  10?  25?

      replyreport
      1. 61

         movingoutposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Interesting humor. I take it you're one who wants to define the 2nd ammendment? How these type of guns are needed? That arming teachers is the answer? Not interested in taking the bait, thankyou!

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I'm sorry if I offended.  I truly do not know what these terms refer specifically to as I have never been interested in possessing esoteric weapons.  A simple lever action deer and elk rifle and a small handgun is sufficient for me.
            
            Before I could make a judgement call such as you ask for I would need those definitions, which is why I asked.  Is my handgun, a semi automatic style, considered an assault weapon?  I know several with semi automatic rifles - are those what you refer to?  Does caliber make a difference?  While my rifle only holds 5 rounds, many smaller ones hold a dozen or more.  Would you be concerned with a .22 that held 10 or 15 rounds?  If not, where would you draw the line?
            
            You didn't mention high power ammunition as such, but would you outlaw 50 caliber ammo?  An elephant gun, suitable for large game?
            
            I watched an episode of "Pawn Stars" recently where a very large caliber civil war gatling gun was test fired before a purchase offer was made.  Would you outlaw such antique weapons as falling under the umbrella term "assault weapon" if they are in operating condition?

            replyreport
            1. 91

               habeeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Okay, I'm being serious now. A Remington 1100 shotgun is a semi-automatic weapon, holding 5 shells. In GA, the 1100 has to be plugged to hold only 3 shells when hunting quail, dove, squirrel - anything other than bear, feral pigs, and deer. If we want to discuss outlawing semi-automatic/assalt weapons, we need more guidelines. I certainly don't think weapons like the 1100 shotgun should be banned. People who have no knowledge of firearms hear "semi-automatic," and they immediately think something like an AK-47, which can hold up to 100 rounds and fire rapidly.
               
               Personally, I've never found the need to fire that many rounds without reloading. Heck, my Wingmaster holds only 3 shells, and it's brought down plenty of dove and quail. I used my hubby's 1100 several times, but I preferred my old pump. I'm curious about other states' hunting regulations: Do they require a plug while hunting small game and birds?

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  That illustrates my problem, habee.  With my limited knowledge of the subject, there doesn't seem to be any agreement on what the OP is actually talking about.  Everyone has a different idea of what constitutes an assault weapon.  There's no definition.
                  
                  Same for high capacity magazine and high powered weapons.  It's like signing a blank check - do we wait until a ban is approved to see what's it banning?

                  replyreport
                  1. 91

                     habeeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Exactly. Like I said, specifics need to be put forth before a serious debate can even begin.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Which is why it will never begin. More people respond to posts about clarifying things with 'oh that's just semantics' or something to that effect, than are actually interested in figuring anything out.
                        
                        Case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5dT3r_oHoo
                        
                        "The shoulder thing that goes up"
                        
                        This is basically how things work. Representatives introduce bills and they don't even know what they are trying to ban. People call for gun control without even knowing what they are calling for. "We have to pass it to find out what's in it".

                        replyreport
      2. 91

         habeeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Therein lies the rub.
         
         The devil's in the details.
         
         The play's the thing.
         
         When in doubt, tell the truth.
         
         Alas, poor Yorick. I knew him, Horatio!
         
         It takes two to tango.
         
         How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child.
         
         By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes!
         
         
         Yeah, I know...most of these quotes have nothing to do with the question at hand, but I kinda got started and couldn't stop. lol

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              You must learn to stop habee.  Stop, and smell the roses before you join poor Yorick.

            replyreport
   2. 60

      Xenonlitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yes. And anyone who wants to nitpick over whether a weapon is an "assault" weapon or not is playing games. I propose calling anything but a revolver a weapon of mass killing.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      logic,commonsenseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Last time I checked, it wasn't up to you what I could buy or not buy.  I have no need for a 30 round magazine, but I feel I should have the opportunity to buy them if I so desire.  I have no need for a car that travels more than 80 miles an hour, but I should have the opportunity to buy one if I so desire.
      Unlike a lot of people, I'm smart enough to run my own life.  I don't need obama, biden or any other politician telling me what I need or don't need.  I don't believe it is the right of anyone here or anywhere else to make my choices for me.  If you don't want a gun or a 30 round magazine, that's cool, don't get them.  Just because there are idiots and mentally ill people out there that cause issues doesn't mean we should hide under a rock and fear our shadows.
      One armed teacher in Newtown would probably have saved most all the lives that were lost. 
      One person alerting the authorities of the evil animals 5 attempts to buy guns in the last month, might have saved all the victims.  People need to say something when they see odd behavior, not ignore it.

      replyreport
2. 66

   innersmiffposted 11 years ago

   'Average' American? Again with this? What do you call military-men - Super Americans? Are these the same people that believe that politicians are representatives of the average people? Are they average or are they special? Make your minds up.
   
   No, the clip size argument is an extension of the normal gun control argument: no guns, no gun killing. This is an incredibly redundant line of reasoning and actually a little dumb when you think how intelligent the people who propagate it usually are.
   
   Is there a moral argument for procuring weapons from people using force? No, so that should be out of the window after a second's thought. Shouldn't violence be a last resort instead of the first thing people call out for after tragedies? It's the mentality of cowardice, and it's irrational, as well as immoral. Let's start with addressing the education system, the medical healthcare system and repealing laws that inhibit law-abiding citizens' ability to defend themselves in such attacks. Voluntary solutions, not violent ones.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      movingoutposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, I can just imagine people firing off a quick 30 rounds to protect themselves! Give me a break! If you think you need that kind of firearm, you shouldn't own a gun!

      replyreport
      1. 66

         innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Your lack of imagination does not contradict anything I said in my post.

         replyreport
3. 61

   movingoutposted 11 years ago

   Another killing, 16 old in South Dakota kills his friend over a disagreement over a paintball game. Semi automatic used. No, we don't have a problem in this country! Keep telling yourself that!

   replyreport
   1. 66

      innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not sure anybody is arguing that there isn't a problem. The argument is how best to deal with it.

      replyreport
4. 61

   movingoutposted 11 years ago

   Then explain to me please why anyone would need a gun capable of firing, say 30 rounds please?

   replyreport
   1. 66

      innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      That's not my business, but I will say that if an institution is exerting a violent monopoly over the country, and they have them, I would be inclined to want them too.

      replyreport
5. 61

   movingoutposted 11 years ago

   Heres an argument to help. Make it illegal for gun owners to sell their guns, trade their guns or barter guns to anyone interested in them! This way the only way to purchase a gun is with a background check. Garage saling these guns, put guns in the hands of any Tom, Dick or Harry! Perhaps that would help? Got a better idea?

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      No, but...how do you stop people from bartering guns.  Unless you search every house periodically it seems a little difficult to know who has a gun unless they buy and register it through a dealer. 
      
      I don't think that saying "You can't do that" with no enforcement will do much good.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         movingoutposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         You have to start somewhere! I say from here forward guns sold by private parties require background checks on the buyer or face criminal prosecution. This would scare most from selling on internet sites, garage sales, flea markets and the like. It seems more innocent people get killed by guns then the bad guy!

         replyreport