I don't care if 3 home invaders have 50 round drum magazines. Theoretically, I only need 3 good shots. Since that is not practical, I'd like my best chance possible with higher capacity magazines. Bearing arms means being prepared for war. If you average soldier carries a fully automatic rifle, I don't see why a law abiding citizen can't own or even carry the same. The average soldier doesn't carry around WMDs and couldn't afford them anyway. You can't expect a citizen to defend a whole city by himself, so nuclear arms and indiscriminate arms such as grenades and bombs should be highly regulated by the state governments.(nuclear by the feds)
Not to sidetrack the thread, but I always thought they ought to put tazers in the seat backs for every passenger where those stupid phones used to be, and have them so any crew member could activate them with a remote control. Let's see someone try to hijack THAT plane.
I wonder what percentage of Americans believe that we should have the right to bear all arms. I know there are others like yourself, but I don't think most people want all arms to be legal. When the most dangerous weapon at the time was a single shot rifle, I could see how all arms would be covered. But to include all arms in today's world seems unsafe. I don't want a guy armed with a bomb living next to me.
so why is the extreme so important to you. Most lawful owners 99.99% are not armed with bombs. Those that do are usually licensed to handle explosives and are constantly under the watchful eye of the ATF............you have to conquer your unreasonable fears. You do know that fireworks technicians are monitored constantly. Those are your really big bangs.
According to the Militia Act of 1903, all adult males between the age of 17 and 45 are part of the militia. Besides, the 2A says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Haven't you heard of peace through strength? I don't want war. That's why we prepare. Look at Swiss home invasion statistics. I didn't bother, but I bet there are not many home invasions there.
it isn't regulations when those rules can be applied to Rights. Rights then become privilege which can be revoked en-masse. I say buy what your pockets dictate. Nukes? I doubt if anyone in this country has enough money to build a launch pad. Rights cannot be regulated by the fed gov. It is unconstitutional and unlawful for them to do so.
Our rights end where our neighbor's rights begin. To not recognize that is anarchy. I should be able to do whatever I want until I come to someone else's private property. That is their domain. Public ground is neutral territory and as long as I don't threaten anybody or carry in a place prohibited by law, (courthouses, government legislature halls, military installations, etc...) I should have no problem. We have about 600,000 people in Texas with CHLs already carrying. The mass shootings have been in the gun free zones. (Fort Hood)
You can buy tanks, cannons, heck even a SCUD launcher. All it takes is lots of money, fill out a few forms and a willingness to get the anal exam from the ATF on a regular basis. Take a good look at this auction, it is available if you want it bad enough. http://auctionsamerica.com/events/a...erve=&feature=&stillforsale=&grouping=&page=1
now all you are doing is trolling..I said it before and I'll make it clear again, you are building up steam for a total ban.............you are wasting your time
My 35 rd magazine doesn't hurt anybody else (unlike smoking which does). The problem is mentally ill young men in almost every single school shooting. This isn't a new thing. School massacres have occurred at least since the turn of the 20th century, and in most of the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers_(school_massacres) Most of those school shootings occurred despite background checks--Cho (the VA tech shooter bought his guns on two different occasions, having passed background checks, for example). All background checks do is hassle law-abiding citizens, without having any effect on criminals or mentally ill school shooters.
From what I've read, Lanza (the CT school shooter) had large capacity magazines, but he reloaded most of them after only 10 shots or so were fired. He could easily have done what he did with low capacity magazines.. Also Korean shopowners saved their own lives and livelihoods by the use of high capacity magazines during the LA riots. There are legitimate uses for law-abiding people to have high capacity magazines. The Aurora shooter was only stopped easily because his large capacity magazine jammed. (the larger the capacity, the less reliable). - - - Updated - - - Most drugs don't have a shelf-life of 40 or 50 yrs. In addition, gun magazines can be reloaded after every use. Drugs are used up with every use. - - - Updated - - - And using that logic, the freedom of the press only covers hand-powered printing presses....... - - - Updated - - - Almost nobody wants zero regulations. Zero reg people are strawmen.
It's pretty insane that the one obvious common Denominator with all these school shootings is a mentally screwed up kid, and nobody is addressing that issue, they just blame the tool. And most people are conveniently ignoring the fact that the UCSB nutcase stabbed and killed 3 people before going on his GTA rampage. Not to mention he was running anyone over he could with his car. Now imagine this guy trying this in the neighborhood next to ASU, in a state where everyone from the granny to the maid are packing heat. He most likely wouldn't have even tried it.
Actually, based on the last 40 years of work by the various gun control groups, gun control is the incremental process ending with a ban on firearms. Look to New York, California, Connecticutt, Illinois, Hawaii, DC. They started with simple controls, and over time as those controls failed, they incrementally increased the regulations until they had de-facto gun bans. And the banners have a long history of abusing "common sense" gun control. New York, DC, Illinois, all implemented a gun permit process to insure only law abiding people could get a gun. It sounded so reasonable, but once implemented the requirements to get the permit were so burdensome that it was in effect a ban. No, it could not get through the Senate because the original bill (by Schumer) was called a "universal background check" bill but - if you read the bill - it was really a national gun registry and put the govt in the middle of all gun sales and transfers. Even letting someone hold your gun required a check and transfer of ownership (holding it gave them physical control of the gun). When Tom Coburn said a universal check bill could be passed if the registry was dropped, Schumer said no and that without the registry there was no point to the bill. Thats why those talks broke down. Schmer then talked Mancin & Toomey into fronting a modified bill, but that had problems as well, and by then after Schumers first bill was seen to be a trick, nobody was going to have anything to do with any bill Schumer had touched. Your banner buddies poisoned the well. Nobody trusts the banners anymore. Thats one big reason every gun control measure is opposed. The other reason is that gun control doesn't work. So you admit you don't know why people go on a killing spree, but you alread have the solution - get rid of 35 round magazines. And then you pull the typical banner ploy of making it a choice between a 35 round magazine and my children. I will keep my magazines and my children, and everyone will be perfectly safe. Remember - schools are already gun free zones. The latest 2 school shootings occured in California (gun control central) and Seattle (a lib gun phobic city).
Some truth. I joined politicalforum because I had and still have a lot of questions. One of the questions I had was why cant we limit these seemingly unnecessary massive weapons that are being used to kill school children and innocent civilians? I did SOME research and tried to give an example of how getting rid of something on a nationwide scale (cigarette ads) was beneficial. Co-workers seem to be split on the subject. However, the ones that disagreed seem to all have the same arguments. Its not the gun. If you can get past my fiction-filled 9/11 reference, I hope you can at least understand my explaination to this argument in my original post. . Another argument I hear is its my right. To me, this was just another change to our rights. I once had the right to not wear a seatbealt and talk on the phone while driving. Pretty soon I think I will have the right to smoke pot. Im cool with all of these changes to my rights. Being someone who has never held a gun and didnt really see the need for 30 mags, I really had no problem giving up the right to own a 30 round magazine even if it only saves a small amount of lives. This is what would say to the arguement that a 10 round mag limit would not have stopped the shootings. I pretty much had answers for any argument until Texan explained it to me. I have heard from many many people that say the USA is the greatest country in the world. I hear it less now, but Ive heard it a lot in my lifetime. So what makes it great? Most say freedom. I agree. But thats kind of a broad statement. how did we get this way? My opinion is, many "Americans" dont know. They just live here. So thanks to Texan and a few others I now understand how it works. America is the greatest country in the world because when it started it gave civilians certain rights so the government could not power the people. Im not talking about driving with no seatbelt rights. These are the rights that give us freedom. Some people might say that our government has never been more messed up than it is now. Probably not the time to give them more power. Im probably not going to go out and buy guns, but I will never recommend more gun regulation again.
