jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (116 posts)

Proof that magazine size DOES matter

  1. promisem profile image94
    promisemposted 5 months ago

    Why do gun extremists think that the 30-round assault rifle magazine size is no different than 5-round rifles or even shotguns?

    The video below shows a shooter at a college with a shotgun who killed one person, wounded two others and stopped the reload. As he reloaded, a young man pepper sprayed him and tackled him

    If he had a 30-round AR-15, would that other man have the chance to make the tackle? Of course not.

    http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/06/15 … dlewis.cnn

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

      That is my thought, but I have to step lightly as gun right advocates would vehemently deny this.

    2. ahorseback profile image46
      ahorsebackposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      You mean ".................................of course not ", like you were actually there to know  ?  You don't know anything obviously about the gun, the magazine, or the reaction time and sequence  of a hero !

      1. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        Did you even watch the video? Apparently not.

        1. ahorseback profile image46
          ahorsebackposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          Yes , I watched the video , I say Pepper spray can't save America from stupidity ,  the stupidity  is "safe zone "  .     That video , if not actually staged ,  shows a one in a million chance of  a lifetime .     He's a hero  - yet you think  a magazine size is going to change the world ?  Can you spell naïve?

          1. promisem profile image94
            promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            I can spell both naïve and extremist.

    3. RJ Schwartz profile image91
      RJ Schwartzposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      Continually trying to steer the narrative in favor of gun restrictions simply won't change the minds of people.  In the 1970's we brought guns to school and everyone was familiar with them and gun safety was taught - but when politics became involved in a knee jerk reaction, things changed and guns became the "enemy" - but guns are guns, they don't kill people.  People who want to kill other people will continue to do so.  Your argument is only a segue into additional restrictions - "see if only we had smaller magazines, fewer people would have been shot" - it doesn't address the real problem.  If you get smaller magazines, then you'll go after another issue and then another.

      1. ahorseback profile image46
        ahorsebackposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        I agree a hundred percent ,  in the sixties and seventies  , we brought our guns to school and left them in the "office "closet or in our vehicles unlocked , I remember seeing them standing in the office  corner  by the trophy case !  Now what HAS changed ?  The thug mentality , gang mentality ,  inner city punk culture , stupid parenting ,  a decent and moral society  all began at home THEN  ,  and what we're living today begins in what USED to be called home and is NOW but a sad shadow of what used to be  !

      2. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        RJ, I'm not trying to steer the narrative toward gun restrictions. I'm trying to steer it toward limiting access to assault rifles for children, convicted felons and mentally unstable people.

        Do you agree or not?

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

          The gun rights folks are of the mindset that if you give an inch, those that ask for moderate amounts of control will be asking for a mile later. So, a toddler can go buy a handgun if he or she wants to.

          1. promisem profile image94
            promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            Credence, you are quite right. I have asked that same question many times, and not one of them has agreed to such a small and reasonable limit.

            1. GA Anderson profile image85
              GA Andersonposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              I have seen you post this question before promisem. Since it is already illegal for "children, [those under 18], convicted felons and, [documented] mentally unstable people" to buy guns, any guns, then the focus turns on what you mean by "access?"

              GA

              1. promisem profile image94
                promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                Children are able to own guns legally in 30 states.

                https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won … r-shotgun/

                Virginia Tech and other authorities knew that Seung-Hui Cho was mentally ill with extremely violent fantasies, and yet he bought legally.

                "Federal law prohibits felons from purchasing or receiving guns unless their rights have been formally restored. However, felons can get around this obstacle by buying guns from sellers who do not require criminal background checks." - Politifact

                Since 20% of all firearm sales are private, then plenty of convicted felons can buy guns legally.

                1. GA Anderson profile image85
                  GA Andersonposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  I think I will have to flip a coin to decide if I am a victim of an assumption, or of having the game changed on me in the middle of play.

                  I have been responding relative to the purchase of a gun, but it appears your point also includes ownership or possession of a gun.

                  Looking back to see if I had fallen for a "gotcha" I did find this;

                  "...I'm trying to steer it toward limiting access to assault rifles for children, convicted felons and mentally unstable people."

                  It was my error to assume you were talking about buying a gun, when it appears your view is directed at possession.

                  In switching gears to consider your "limit access" point, I find even more to disagree with. Owning or possessing a gun is much different from buying a gun. A 12-year old kid can't walk into Western Auto, (there's one that dates me), and buy a gun, but he can own or possess a gun his dad gives him, (or buys for him). Is making it illegal for someone under 18 to have a gun in their hands, under any circumstances, a direction you see as a solution?

                  Regarding felons, and excepting those whose rights have been restored, it is still illegal for a felon to own a gun, so even if they get one through a private sale - it is still an illegal firearm. Is your solution a proposal to force background checks on family members? If I want to sell my brother an old hunting rifle would I have to get a background check on him?

                  For mental illness, what thoughts did you have to supplement the existing threshold that requires medical documentation?  Considering that at least an appearance of some type of due process should be involved in denying a right.

                  GA

                  1. promisem profile image94
                    promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    GA, as I'm sure you know, gun control is a complex issue. As well, there have been hundreds of posts in response to this original post and others. It is impossible to cover many nuance in a single thread or reply. But I will try harder to limit the scope of my replies.

                    That being said, I agree I should not have responded with a statistic about ownership to a comment about purchase. Either way, both ownership and purchase are issues.

                    So let's try to see if we can get some facts straight.

                    1. A felon can buy a gun via a private sale from non-licensed dealers at a gun show or elsewhere because non-licensed dealers don't have to do a background check. So yes, it is illegal for the felon to buy a gun, but nothing in the law requires the dealer to do a background check and stop the purchase.

                    2. "Unlicensed persons may sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a long gun (including high capacity weapons) or long gun ammunition to a person of any age." 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1), (c)(1) Again, children have legal access.

                    3. "Federal law provides exceptions for the temporary transfer and possession of handguns and handgun ammunition (to children) for specified activities, including employment, ranching, farming, target practice and hunting." 18 U.S.C. § 922(x)(3)

                    The same background check problem applies to the mentally ill. Federal law does not require checks for mentally ill people who have been flagged for past or potentially violent behavior. That responsibility falls on the states, many of which don't act.

                    Do I have an answer for every conceivable situation? Certainly not. That's why we have hundreds of thousands of laws in this country. But why not at least close the private sale loophole?

          2. rhamson profile image76
            rhamsonposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            I think there is credibility in that idea. Who can trust this Congress to do anything correctly when their votes are suspicious at best? There has been very few laws repealed when a right has been taken away. Prohibition was repealed because no one wanted to abide by it and the cost was too much to enforce. With three hundred million guns out there how will we enforce a ban on even a fraction of them when the bad guys already have them?

          3. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            "...if you give an inch, those that ask for moderate amounts of control will be asking for a mile later. "

            Would it be safe to say that is the same as the often mentioned slippery slope argument?

            In your long life of experience, have you not seen this occur? In trying to come up with suitable examples the EPA came to mind. Would not acceptance of the original powers of the EPA vs. the powers of today's EPA be a "slippery slope" example? How about our court's decisions regarding government's powers of Eminent Domain? What first was intended as a power to advance the public good in the realm of public buildings and public projects has now grown to encompass the good of a larger tax base, or a nicer appearance. Would that be an example of a "slippery slope" decision?

            ps. isn't your toddler example the reverse of what you were saying? My impression is that most anti-gun control advocates are not asking for a rollback of the core regulations that have been enacted.

            GA

            1. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

              I hear you and understand your point about 'slippery slope'. But we need to be cogent and balance that circumstance with the alternative of letting problems fester,  being terrified  to the point of not instituting changes where they are needed.

              In your example of the EPA, their powers have been expanded because they needed to be given the scope of environmental degradation in our society. That is sloping in the correct direction.

              But I can find sympathy about the concept of "eminant domain' getting out of hand as a way large and powerful interests can  take private property without any real justification. 
              Have you spoke with Wilderness? He will tell you that registrations and background checks are contrary to his understanding of the Second Amendment.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                Registrations and background checks - They may be contrary to an absolute and strict interpretation of the amendment.  They are also a valuable tool in controlling the actions of those that would use that tool for illegal purposes.  As such I support them as much as I support driver's licenses and refusing to give one to someone with a known propensity for driving drunk.

                But they, too, are a slippery slope.  Consider the recent calls for anyone on a secret government list, made up by secret people that cannot be challenged and forbidding specific individuals from exercising their rights.  That's far down that slippery slope, IMHO.

                And of course there is always the question of "need".  The liberal finds a "need" to eliminate all guns possible from the citizenry, but that's a "need" that will, and does, only satisfy their need for control of others.  In reality and practice it accomplishes nothing else but changing the label for a homicide from "gun death" to something else and does nothing whatsoever to stop the carnage.  Of course it may also (temporarily) quell the fears of gun haters and buy some votes, but does that really qualify as a "need"?

                1. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  Thanks for clearing that up...

              2. GA Anderson profile image85
                GA Andersonposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                I think your point about the EPA is a debatable one, but I do understand, given your Eminent Domain comment, that relative to "give an inch... take a mile" you want your cake and eat it too.

                GA

                1. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  I guess what one can  considered 'over the top' can also depend on one's ideological bent.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image85
                    GA Andersonposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    I am not sure I understand your comment. My point had nothing to do with any "over the top" positions. It was only in support of the belief of many gun advocates that more bans or gun ownership restrictions would only amount to stepping stones to more drastic restrictions.

                    There have been a ton of gun control threads, and I don't mean to start another rehash here, but... in my opinion, advocates for further gun ownership restrictions will not be satisfied short of a total ban. So yes, I am in the "give them an inch and they will take a mile" camp. I think our government's history shows I am right.

                    GA

        2. RJ Schwartz profile image91
          RJ Schwartzposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          Hmmm - your question to start this discussion makes no mention of any of those issues.  I think convicted felons are already off the gun-buying list.  The columbine shooters had 10 round magazines and shotguns.  Most other shootings are done with handguns. Why the hangup on assault weapons?  Anyone wanting to inflict mass casualties could just as easily take several pistols and get the same results.

          1. promisem profile image94
            promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            You are well aware of why I am focused on assault rifles because you have seen my other posts and responded to them.

            Felons are not off the gun buying list. If their record is expunged, they can buy.

            No background check is required for private purchases, which make up 20% of all firearm sales. So once again, convicted felons can legally buy guns.

            http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/politics/ … explainer/

            Your final sentence flies in the face of reality. Do you seriously think someone with handguns can kill 49 people and wound 52 others in a matter of minutes?

            I seem to have more facts about guns and gun ownership than the people who are battling me on these boards.

    4. Onusonus profile image85
      Onusonusposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      I'll just leave this here. Your argument is invalid.

      https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13417534_957955734302638_2586557396290301285_n.jpg?oh=5646aee544e7578e217c77e76d83b904&oe=57CC30BE

      1. ahorseback profile image46
        ahorsebackposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        ++++++++++++++Can anyone say , Naive ?

        1. Onusonus profile image85
          Onusonusposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          Yes the naivety runs deep in these forums. Facts always seem to ruin the political narrative of liberals. Here's some more facts.

          https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13445520_10154291897268570_1301913087700063083_n.jpg?oh=7ca9c09305e0090c2ea7ab0ea6df1e39&oe=57F642A1

          1. promisem profile image94
            promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            Gun extremism runs deep in these forums. Extremists refuse to answer a simple question:

            Should children, violent felons and mentally ill people have easy access to high-capacity weapons like assault rifles?

            Do you have the courage to answer this question when other do not?

            While we're at it, how about answering the original point?

            1. Onusonus profile image85
              Onusonusposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              I trust this child more with an AR 15 than I trust you with it. And I still don't want to take away your right to own one.
              http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/141016160031-shyanne-roberts-standing-irpt-large-169.jpg

      2. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        My argument is invalid? Really? Someone with a shotgun can kill 49 people and wound 52 others in a few minutes time?

        1. Onusonus profile image85
          Onusonusposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          No, but the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. You could wait for the police to come, (as did the people in Orlando) or you can be smart and come to the realization that this country's moronic leadership is allowing tens of thousands of people who hold to an insane religious ideology which requires them to hurt and kill infidels to come into this country unchecked, and figure out a way to protect yourself and your family.

          So we can choose to arm ourselves against these criminals, or we can come up with ineffective laws that disarm law abiding citizens. One thing you can be sure of is that the bad guys will get whatever guns they want because they don't care about breaking laws. (which is why they always choose to go on their rampages in gun free zones).

          1. promisem profile image94
            promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            That's a classic NRA statement. If it's so easy to stop these people with a gun, why can't we do it in the most heavily armed nation on the planet?

            If you are concerned about stopping criminals, why does the NRA oppose background checks for unlicensed dealers at gun shows?

            A convicted murderer can leave prison after 10 years, go to a gun show, buy an assault rifle from an unlicensed dealer and kill anyone who made him mad.

            Is that right ot wrong?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              A little off topic, but why harp on "assault rifles"?  They are used in only a tiny percentage of murders - there are more murders committed with hands and feet than with "assault rifles" - so why all the commotion about them?

              Because of a scary name?  Because of a scary paint job?  Because they look military (even though they're not) and are thus scary?  It is one of the least used murder weapons, so why concentrate so much vitriol over them?

              1. Rochelle Frank profile image89
                Rochelle Frankposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                Do you think there would be fewer murders if people didn't have hands and feet?

              2. promisem profile image94
                promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                I appreciate the first paragraph, but I have to say that the second paragraph is rather condescending.

                I oppose easy access to assault rifles and other high-capacity weapons because of their ability to kill large numbers of people in a matter of minutes.

                I am not opposed to gun ownership. I am opposed to laws that allow easy access to mass murder weapons.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  It was intended to be rather condescending; the term "assault rifle", along with the current political meanings, is but a scare tactic to ban a small subset of long guns that do very little damage to society.  It is all about fear, not fact, and is ridiculous in the extreme. 

                  Do you know that an "assault weapon" need not have a large magazine (or a removable magazine at all)?  That it need not be a semi-automatic (or automatic) weapon?  That such things as the presence of a hand grip, barrel shroud or folding stock are what makes the determination? 

                  These things have exactly nothing to with it's capabilities, just appearance.  But they do make the weapon look scary and that is the only thing those wishing to ban them have to use.  So they do; they invent a false and misleading name, spread fear, and do their best to limit the 2nd amendment thereby. 

                  Is there a person out there that thinks if we ban them we will save a single life?  That actually believes, after reasoning it through, that an "assault weapon" killed more in Orlando than a pair of semi-automatic .45 handguns with a few extra magazines (which the shooter carried) would have?  Should "assault rifles" be banned we will possibly (possibly) cut down on the number of deaths committed with that scary looking "assault rifle"...while raising the death toll from other weapons far more deadly and easy to use.  Matches, perhaps: mass murder via arson has gone up considerably (as has the number killed in mass murders as well as the number of mass murders) after Australia took their people's guns away.

                  1. Marisa Wright profile image93
                    Marisa Wrightposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    Wilderness, I have to correct that statement, it's grossly misleading.

                    When people die following a bushfire caused by someone lighting a fire, the person responsible is charged with murder.  That does NOT mean the person is a mass murdered who would've used a gun if it was available - they are "fire bugs" who have a psychological fixation with fire.  They have no desire to kill people in any other way.

                    So you can't say deaths from fire have increased BECAUSE guns have been taken away.  Those statistics have risen because Australia has had some very hot years and therefore bushfires have caused far more deaths than usual.   Please do not cheapen and insult those who died by using their deaths to create distorted statistics.

                    If you have other stats on other kinds of murders then I'm happy to discuss them but that is the lowest of the low.

                  2. promisem profile image94
                    promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    I'm disappointed that someone with your reasoning abilities feels the need to mock people for their beliefs.

                    It seems to be a pattern with the gun gang on HubPages. They all resort to mocking people who think differently than them. They also evade simple questions.

                    I asked you guys repeatedly if we should limit access to assault rifles for criminals and mentally ill people. NONE of you answered the question.

                    I asked you guys if someone with a shotgun can kill 49 people and would 52 others. None of you answered the question.

                    Instead of mocking me, why don't you respond to the original post? Can you kill 49 and would 52 in a matter of minutes with a shotgun?

    5. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      When you say 'extremist' you mean 'anyone who disagrees with me' - so you set yourself up as a fool. And there you are.

      1. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        I have defined the gun extremist above and on other posts as someone who thinks children, violent felons and mentally ill people should have easy access to assault rifles.

        Do you think they should? If you do, you are an extremist and a bigger fool than me. You also are a danger to society. If you do not, then you are not an extremist.

  2. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 5 months ago

    I have concluded that liberals simply don't understand how to prevent anything from happening  , Laws ?  Lets talk about the Clinton Bans, worked super good huh ?   Not! ,   Maybe we should talk illegal immigration  , Those laws work really well right ?  How about  manslaughter , that law works extremely well too right , No ?, Maybe  laws banning  drinking while driving ? .......That's what I thought . I know  , liberals are always saying they are more intellectual right ?   What about the epidemic of campus rapes at Harvard and all the other ivory towers ?  How's that rape law working ? .

    How is it that liberals are forever willing to sacrifice the other guys  liberties ? That's what I'd like to know ?  But then hey , no liberal will answer this when they can skip right over the question like most other realities !

  3. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 5 months ago

    Liberals instinctively want a society protected  in bubblewrap* ,   a new legislation is the answer  to all our cultural ills !    'Assault weapons ' terminology has now morphed to "weapons of war "  THAT is the manifest  destiny of the left .  So no ......I , for one , won't give another  inch .

  4. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 5 months ago

    You guys seem lost as to the equality of Constitutional liberties !     And that misunderstanding is equality and your niavete  first ,     The government [federal ] cannot keep lists , we as law abiding gun owners , buyers , taders are allowed the same liberties as you .   Can they keep lists of liberal professors ?  Of  Socialist union activists ?  Of Marxist political  organizers ?   .......No.? So why in the hell should a grouse hunter from Nebraska have to be placed on a federal list of gun owner , buyer , or trader  lists ?

    If I  were a liberal in America , I would bone up on my education ,  Bone up on constitutional law .     The second amendment , the second  oldest amendment in America ,  not only  was it designed to protect  the patriots  of soldierhood ,  they protected you  ! Was it designed for Islam ? .  Was it designed for  Marxists ?  Was it designed for BLM ?   Who the hell thinks tha you can change the very livelyhood or  meaning ,   of our constitution .........?

  5. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 5 months ago

    http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13076386.jpg

    Exactly !   But then why would liberals ever read fact when a good nursery rhyme   will do every time .
    Crime has dropped  in almost all violent crime categories for thirty years or more  , except liberally run inner cities like Chicago   Detroit , L.A. , all the major liber enclaves  ...........Get rid of liberal courts , liberal  legislators , liberal mayors , liberal  lawyers .      restore punishment ,  prosecution ......no more plea-ing it all down to liberal sh*t  cases.

  6. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 5 months ago

    By the way , I am one of those NRA guys that had  O interest in an AR   15 rifle until  all of the unfair liberal hysteria and anti- constitution  government intervention .   I just ordered mine for my collection and plan to keep it just to see what all the hype is about .  Thank you anti's !

    Thank you for the 130 % increase a year since Obama took office , my friendly gun store owner is thanking you too!.

  7. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 5 months ago

    http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13076392_f1024.jpg

    If any one would like to get real and stop hyperventilating  about guns , perhaps pull yourselves together about the big bad wolf  AR 15 ,or its little 10 -20 - 30 round magazines  Call me , I'll take you out so you can try one out , you might like it !    I also promise you that no gun will ever rise from it's stationary position and  bother you  while we ride , you see it's an inanimate object  , capable of injuring anyone or anything without the help of the human mind ............really !

    I will not take you though  if you're  spazzing out !

  8. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 5 months ago

    Come on now ......that was funny !

  9. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 5 months ago

    http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13076520.jpg

  10. 60
    Kenagainposted 5 months ago

    There all dangerous but it depends on who owns it to

  11. Maria Thomson profile image61
    Maria Thomsonposted 5 months ago

    Because they probably own an assault rifle and/or think it's a piece of beauty. It's obvious that an assault rifle is more dangerous, but they are in denial. They are afraid we ll take away their toys and they won't feel as powerful.  Who will be there to protect them from their shadows of their childhood?

    Why would we want to take away their power??? Well apparently because we don't want to see our kids dead in school one day to some crazy idiot who bought an 30-round rifle.

    Yeah yeah, it's rare. I don't care if it's rare. Dieing in a car crash is rare too, but I always wear a seatbelt and drive carefully.

    What most people fail to realize is that the odds of an accident are not the sole factor one must consider; we need to take into account the magnitude of the accident as well. To me, 1/100,000 chance to lose my daughter to a bullet is much worse than 1/100 to break my leg. See? 1/100,000 is smaller than 1/100 but it's still much worse. (i used random numbers, but my point still stands)

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      "Yeah yeah, it's rare. I don't care if it's rare. Dieing in a car crash is rare too, but I always wear a seatbelt and drive carefully. "

      But you still drive.  And you still allow nearly anyone else to drive, too, up to the point that they have proven beyond any doubt they are unable to do so.  And if you (a careful driver) are in an accident and die from it, the fault likely lies with someone else's driving.  So the difference lies...where?  How does it make sense to allow children to drive a car but not own a gun, knowing that more will die from cars (along with other innocent people) than from guns?

      But you want to talk odds - the odds of dying from a gun, if you are not a gang member, is tiny indeed with lots of zeros.  And the odds of dying from an "assault gun" are so minuscule as to be nearly non-existent.  Somebody posted the stats of that on the forum lately.

      1. Maria Thomson profile image61
        Maria Thomsonposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        The difference is that driving a car is necessary. Owning an automatic rifle with 20+ rounds is not. It's a .. "hobby".

        I can't eliminate the danger of a traffic accident. The risk of an assault rifle can be eliminated though.

        What would happen if all automatic rifles are banned? (excluding voters' displeasure). Please name all the negative effects of banning heavy weapons.

        1. ahorseback profile image46
          ahorsebackposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          Everything you just stated is a lie ,   You can eliminate the danger of an accident , eliminate cars or passengers  , eliminate  stupidity !   Where does it say in the constitution  that you have a right to cars ?   Or that dumb assed drivers  should have one ?    I'm shaking my head at the state of wonder  about reasoning  ,however  there is none  with anti- second amendment advocates!

          1. Maria Thomson profile image61
            Maria Thomsonposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            Oh is that so.

            How can you eliminate the risk of a drunk driver losing control of his vehicle and smashing his car into yours?

            1. ahorseback profile image46
              ahorsebackposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              So I guess your not getting my point ! ........."   A gun is a hobby a car a necessity "........what difference do it make .   I have a constitutional right to own a gun or assault rifle for whatever my reasons , and that's  not  subject  to your reasoning !     I say you don't need the right to free speech and this is where You say free speech never killed anyone ,  or  I say that  YOU  shouldn't have the right to an attorney at my cost .........are  any of my rights  beginning to make sense to you ?      Because the ignorance of anti-gun people is so astounding !

              Just how is it that you believe that you can change MY constitutional rights because of YOUR wishes ?

              1. Maria Thomson profile image61
                Maria Thomsonposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                Your constitutional rights are not being violated if you aren't allowed to carry a grenade or an automatic rifle. You can pretty well defend yourself even with a handgun, unless of course you live in Iraq.

                Bringing up the second amendment is just an excuse to maintain the status quo.

            2. promisem profile image94
              promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              Maria, when you step into this hornet's nest, prepare to be mocked, browbeaten and called a liar by the gun extremists.

              Take some comfort in knowing that you have the moral high ground and that you are not alone.

              Thank you for stepping up and taking part.

              1. Maria Thomson profile image61
                Maria Thomsonposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                I don't mind being attacked for speaking up.

                I guess that makes 2 of us smile

                1. GA Anderson profile image85
                  GA Andersonposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  Hello Maria, I hope you don't mind me jumping in, but...

                  I don't think anyone gets attacked here just for speaking up. I think it is the content of someone's "speaking-up" that may draw criticism. The moral high-ground can be a lofty place, but it can also be a dangerous place if that high ground has no foundation or validation beyond the holder's say-so.

                  We are all certainly entitled to our opinions, but if we toss those opinions into a public discussion, and they cannot be validated beyond emotional support, or even worse, they can be easily proven wrong, then the resulting criticism is not out of line. And it is an attack of the opinion, not the person.

                  ps. All groups of people have their share of knotheads, these forums are no different. So of course you will find exceptions to what I described above. ;-)

                  GA

                  1. promisem profile image94
                    promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    GA, you normally show more restraint than others. But with due respect, I don't agree.

                    Certain people quote laws, provide statistics, reference credible sources of information and still get attacked including being called a liar and other names. Those aren't attacks on opinions.

                    For example, someone says there are laws in place to stop children, violent criminals and mentally ill people from obtaining guns. Someone else provides links to credible sources proving otherwise.

                    Is that second person lacking validation?

                    And I hardly call opposing assault rifles in the hands of the above three groups lacking in moral high ground.

            3. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              Take away the privilege (as opposed to guaranteed right) of driving.  Which we do...after the person as exhibited a propensity for drunk driving.  But constitutional rights - those we take away from everyone because someone else - a minute portion of the population -  will use them as a tool for murder. 

              Make good sense?

              1. Maria Thomson profile image61
                Maria Thomsonposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                No constitutional rights are being taken away. A handgun is more than enough to defend yourself.

                1. GA Anderson profile image85
                  GA Andersonposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  And here is an example of my above point to you. If it is your opinion that a handgun is enough for self-defense, how do you support that? Is it just you that thinks so? Is there proof out there to back you up?

                  For instance; If I saw a couple guys running at me with handguns, and they were out of handgun range, I would certainly wish I had a long gun instead of waiting for them to get close enough to shoot me with a handgun.

                  GA

                  1. Credence2 profile image86
                    Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    OK, GA, then let me ask you, why ban fully automatic weapons? Why is not the NRA up in arms about that? Where is the fine line between military ordinance and firearms that are available to the public and what is the basis of that delineation and who makes it?

                  2. Maria Thomson profile image61
                    Maria Thomsonposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    What's the likelihood of a situation similar to the one in your second paragraph happening in real life? Sounds more like a movie to me. You are asserting it's a likely scenario though, so could you back it up?

                    In real life, you will either be attacked outside your house from a close distance or inside your house (close quarters again). Do you honestly believe that a 30 round rifle would be better than a handgun and a shotgun respectively?

                    No I will not bother backing up every single claim I make, just like you didn't back up your assertion that the scenario you described is probable.

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  Except there is nothing in the constitution about self defense; just the right to keep and bear arms.

                  And several cities already ban handguns.  At least semi-reasonable (if you think killers will only kill with a gun) as handguns are used to commit far, far more murders than any long gun, "assault" or not.

                  Which makes one wonder just why you pick on "heavy weapons", "automatic weapons" (already banned) or "assault weapons" when all of those combined are used in a small fraction of the murders hand guns are.  Can you explain the reasoning here?

                  1. Maria Thomson profile image61
                    Maria Thomsonposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    So do I have the right to bear grenades or biological weapons? Or is there a reasonable limit to the right to bear arms?

                    Maybe handguns are used to commit far more murders as you suggest, but this is not because assault rifles are less dangerous, it's because handguns are easier to get and carry.

                    Also you need to separate the gang related murders involving guns, and then we can be sure you are right on your assumptions. After that I can explain my reasoning.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          Unfortunately, (legally) owning an automatic weapon is very difficult and quite rare in the US.  It is very much against the laws in every state.

          But an "assault rifle", by current laws, is NOT an automatic weapon.  Instead, the term "assault rifle" is being, very misleadingly, defined as any rifle with a folding stock, hand grip, barrel shroud or a few other items.  All inconsequential, all quite silly, and all designed solely to confuse J Q Public into thinking they are military type guns.  They aren't.

          As far as a car being necessary, thousands upon thousands of US citizens do quite will without one.  Not that "need" is ever mentioned in the amendment guaranteeing the right to own and bare arms.

  12. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 5 months ago

    I suggest this in comparison to second amendment gun laws ,   Why don't  people have to get a permit to use the first amendment , the exercising of free speech  has caused at least as much harm as the second amendment has .    You know ,  if you  have want to use  the reckless and endangering free speech that ,  for instance , Black lives Matters  does ,  you should have to go through an application  for exercising free and dangerous , inflammatory speech  !

    A gun purchaser  has to fill out an app  for ATF or FBI  background checks , wait in line for a return call or  verification that he has no criminal record  . Before he can use a firearm  , why not the idiots who get people killed in Chicago , Detroit  , DC. or  Ferguson ,    .

    Lesson number one for those who have no constitutional law  expertise and continually sell out the constitutional protections of "others " by blasting forth with your free speech rights  ------The FBI cannot compile lists of people who have broken no laws   and has to be damned careful with even the conviction lists that they do maintain !   For instance , I have owned guns my entire life , I have no felonies ,  no civil violations  , no mental health problems  , no legal  problems at all in fact , 

    ALL THE ATF-FBI CAN DO IS CHECK  FOR LAW VIOLATIONS , MENTAL HEALTH  ISSUES OR  OTHER  DAMNING  LEGAL RECORDS THAT I MIGHT HAVE  AND THEN PUT A "HOLD" or  A "DENIED "ON MY PURCHASE !     If I have no record -------they can then keep no record !

    So to  all of the drivel  of anti- second amendment , anti- gun crowd , Tough  Cookies !

  13. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 5 months ago

    Proof that Magazine size matters ?

    If that matters then so would prosecuting perpetrators  of existing gun law violations ,
    So would incarcerating criminals for more than the holding time for attaining bail .
    So would the  two thousand existing gun laws that go ignored during violent crime arrests .
    So would the dropped charges for a majority of domestic violence charges  .
    So would the unaccountability of illegal immigration .
    So would the uncontrolled amount of plea bargaining .
    So would the major curse of liberalism of this justice system .

    But I understand , one more gun law will cure us all of violence ..........................?

 
working