Gun Enthusiasts..... Please Don't View the Following:

[Brain357]

I did. When I was a young man, two armed burglars broke into our home. I had a Ruger .223 with a 30 round magazine. The bad guys had high capacity magazines as well...over twice the number of rounds I had. Having that firearm and magazine allowed me to not only prevent harm coming to me and my family, but also prevented me from shooting one of the bad guys, which I would of HAD to do with a double barrel shotgun or bolt action rifle. As it turned out, I was able to 'waste' a round by firing into the couch (scaring the shit out of both of them), while still having plenty of rounds to hold them until the police arrived.

So there you go, someone that needed a high capacity magazine.

Other examples? Look no further than the Korean store owners that defended their lives with AR riles and high cap mags against hundreds of rioters. They could not have done that with a revolver!

Please share a news article documenting this shoot out.

One bullet into a couch is not a shoot out, but you knew that. Don't believe me, I couldn't care less. PLENTY of articles of how those Korean store owners defended their lives with AR rifles during the LA riots.

One bullet into a couch is you example of needing a hi cap magazine?

 

[Hum Dinger]

If we all have the 'right' to own a gun, then it follows that we should not be denied this right because of financial limitations.

If a person cannot reasonably afford an assault weapon and ammunition, then the government should be obliged to give it to him.

If it is a right then everyone' right should be equal.

 

[Spoonman]

Please share a news article documenting this shoot out.

One bullet into a couch is not a shoot out, but you knew that. Don't believe me, I couldn't care less. PLENTY of articles of how those Korean store owners defended their lives with AR rifles during the LA riots.

One bullet into a couch is you example of needing a hi cap magazine?

a max speed limit of 65 is reason for cars to be able to go 150 mph? if you can get drunk on beer, why do we have stronger liquor?

 

[Brain357]

That requires the massive assumption that the bad guy is going to follow the law and not possess a high capacity magazine. Now who would be so ridiculous to think criminals will all of a sudden begin to follow that particular law?

And please, don't come back with the idea that we'll eliminate high cap magazines! There are millions of them already out there and they're made of nothing more than sheet metal and a spring! It's not rocket science to extend an low cap magazine (every one can be) or build a new one from scratch.



Three seconds would be the slowest magazine change I've ever seen. Only a complete incompetent, with no experience would take that long. Every guy I shoot with can change magazines in well under a second.

But again, the point is moot. The bad guy is going to have whatever size magazine he wants. It's only law abiding citizens that would be burdened. Now why would anyone want to do that?



Hunting is evil? Protecting one's family and property is evil? Ensuring the last measure of protection against tyranny is evil?

Wow. That's one hell of a world view you have there.

Why aren't all criminals using machine guns then?

Because machine guns are far from the best tool for the job. Even in the military, machine guns are used to lay down suppression fire...to get the bad guys to take cover while the good guys move into a new position. If your job is to kill someone, you're much better off with a semi auto rifle that you use to take aim with...not just 'spraying and praying'. This was proven equivocalably with the North Hollywood shootout. Those criminals had fully automatic AK47s, shot thousands of rounds, and didn't manage to kill anyone.

What hunter needs a hi capacity magazine?

If you hunt hogs, there is no better platform than an AR with a high capacity magazine. Get into a singular wild hogs when they're mad and you'll wish like hell you had more ammo.

I also hunt varmints with an AR. Nothing better for short range varmint hunting, where multiple targets can appear at once.

But the point really is that we have a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs. You don't get to determine what another man needs.

Name a real example of someone needing a hi capacity magazine for defense.

I needed one when armed thugs broke into my family's home. The Korean store owners needed them when the LA rioters threatened their families.

But again, I don't get to tell you what books you do and don't need. Same for all other inalienable rights.

So I guess when hunting hogs you lose the super power of changing magazines quickly? If people shooting people can change magazines so fast it doesn't matter certainly you can do that while hunting. You seem to want both sides, I'm not sure that is honest.

 

[Spoonman]

If we all have the 'right' to own a gun, then it follows that we should not be denied this right because of financial limitations.

If a person cannot reasonably afford an assault weapon and ammunition, then the government should be obliged to give it to him.

If it is a right then everyone' right should be equal.

thats right, screw the obamaphone and give me an AR

 

[M14 Shooter]

If we all have the 'right' to own a gun, then it follows that we should not be denied this right because of financial limitations.

If a person cannot reasonably afford an assault weapon and ammunition, then the government should be obliged to give it to him.

If it is a right then everyone' right should be equal.

If liberals read the 2nd like they do the rest of the constitution, this is exactly what we'd have.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Of course they can work. There are enough first world countries with sensible gun control measures in place that tell us that they can and do work.

If more guns was the answer we'd already be the safest country in the world, but we're far from it. To anyone with a shred of common sense would be able to determine from this that more guns does not equal more safety.

Hey dumbass where were all the shootings before say the mid 90s?I grew up in the 80s, we didnt have any, hell in the 50s noone had them.....

My question is, when do you think criminals will follow the laws?

 

[Brain357]

Because machine guns are far from the best tool for the job. Even in the military, machine guns are used to lay down suppression fire...to get the bad guys to take cover while the good guys move into a new position. If your job is to kill someone, you're much better off with a semi auto rifle that you use to take aim with...not just 'spraying and praying'. This was proven equivocalably with the North Hollywood shootout. Those criminals had fully automatic AK47s, shot thousands of rounds, and didn't manage to kill anyone.



If you hunt hogs, there is no better platform than an AR with a high capacity magazine. Get into a singular wild hogs when they're mad and you'll wish like hell you had more ammo.

I also hunt varmints with an AR. Nothing better for short range varmint hunting, where multiple targets can appear at once.

But the point really is that we have a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs. You don't get to determine what another man needs.



I needed one when armed thugs broke into my family's home. The Korean store owners needed them when the LA rioters threatened their families.

But again, I don't get to tell you what books you do and don't need. Same for all other inalienable rights.

Your story is not yet well documented. Just how many shots did these store owners fire? Document that.

And how would one determine exactly how many rounds were fire...by multiple people across a city the size of LA, all during a riot? Good God man, you're not that thick are you?

While not a lot of reporters stuck around, there are a few videos showing the store owners protecting themselves and their families:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SiG9Q7MGqvw]LA Riots - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgCiC6qTtjs]LA Riots - Armed store owners deter rioters - YouTube[/ame]

Perhaps the most telling remark came from Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center. In the May 19, 1993 edition of the Washington Post, he stated "You can’t get around the image of people shooting at people to protect their stores and it working. This is damaging to the [gun control] movement.”

But once again, the point is that you don't get to decide what another man needs.

If these store owners can change magazines in less than a second I don't see why they would need hi cap magazines. Just how many people did they shoot? We must know that.

 

[Spoonman]

Why aren't all criminals using machine guns then?

Because machine guns are far from the best tool for the job. Even in the military, machine guns are used to lay down suppression fire...to get the bad guys to take cover while the good guys move into a new position. If your job is to kill someone, you're much better off with a semi auto rifle that you use to take aim with...not just 'spraying and praying'. This was proven equivocalably with the North Hollywood shootout. Those criminals had fully automatic AK47s, shot thousands of rounds, and didn't manage to kill anyone.



If you hunt hogs, there is no better platform than an AR with a high capacity magazine. Get into a singular wild hogs when they're mad and you'll wish like hell you had more ammo.

I also hunt varmints with an AR. Nothing better for short range varmint hunting, where multiple targets can appear at once.

But the point really is that we have a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs. You don't get to determine what another man needs.

Name a real example of someone needing a hi capacity magazine for defense.

I needed one when armed thugs broke into my family's home. The Korean store owners needed them when the LA rioters threatened their families.

But again, I don't get to tell you what books you do and don't need. Same for all other inalienable rights.

So I guess when hunting hogs you lose the super power of changing magazines quickly? If people shooting people can change magazines so fast it doesn't matter certainly you can do that while hunting. You seem to want both sides, I'm not sure that is honest.

hunting is a sport. self defense isn't

 

[Politico]

Hilarious entertainment. And already a thread on it.

 

[Spoonman]

Your story is not yet well documented. Just how many shots did these store owners fire? Document that.

And how would one determine exactly how many rounds were fire...by multiple people across a city the size of LA, all during a riot? Good God man, you're not that thick are you?

While not a lot of reporters stuck around, there are a few videos showing the store owners protecting themselves and their families:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SiG9Q7MGqvw]LA Riots - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgCiC6qTtjs]LA Riots - Armed store owners deter rioters - YouTube[/ame]

Perhaps the most telling remark came from Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center. In the May 19, 1993 edition of the Washington Post, he stated "You can’t get around the image of people shooting at people to protect their stores and it working. This is damaging to the [gun control] movement.”

But once again, the point is that you don't get to decide what another man needs.

If these store owners can change magazines in less than a second I don't see why they would need hi cap magazines. Just how many people did they shoot? We must know that.

boy you are dense. its about having equal footing with your attacker. you know why there are few reports of self defense where multiple shots are fired? because most people attacked are a statistic. they are dead. now had they had a gun with a 30 round mag, the attacker would be dead. why did so many die in sandy hook? they were all unarmed. thats usually the way it is.

 

[M14 Shooter]

boy you are dense. its about having equal footing with your attacker.

It's about having BETTER footing than your attacker.

 

[Spoonman]

Ignorance is bliss.

In that case you must be one extremely happy mother fucker

Says the guy who runs away every time we debate.

hey, what happened? did you run away?

 

[RDD_1210]

In that case you must be one extremely happy mother fucker

Says the guy who runs away every time we debate.

i never run away. lol at you calling spreading liberal propoganda debating. in that case joseph goebels was a great debator

Making Nazi references = the sign of a truly great debater.

 

[RDD_1210]

so just how many times in your life have you been acosted with a gun?

How many times have you stopped a raping with your big bad gun?

i kept my ass from getting kicked by 3 pissed off bikers who mistook me for someone else.

That's a lie.

 

[RDD_1210]

Of course they can work. There are enough first world countries with sensible gun control measures in place that tell us that they can and do work.

If more guns was the answer we'd already be the safest country in the world, but we're far from it. To anyone with a shred of common sense would be able to determine from this that more guns does not equal more safety.

Hey dumbass where were all the shootings before say the mid 90s?I grew up in the 80s, we didnt have any, hell in the 50s noone had them.....

My question is, when do you think criminals will follow the laws?

YAWN.......You must think there are no criminals in Japan, or in Australia, or in Canada or in Germany. Man, you are pretty gullible.

 

[Two Thumbs]

"Gun Nuts..... Please Don't View the Following:"

How has this not been put into the FZ?

There was no attempt from the jump to be anything other than flaming.

 

[Two Thumbs]

You're wrong, I read the link and I read the further link within the article.
As I said, the law was intended to prevent mass shootings and it has.
People still have the same God-given freedom to own firearms and shoot other people that they always had...it just isn't as easy to do it en masse as it was before.

So the end result of more people being killed, in smaller numbers, is a win?

It's not more people getting killed, the trend is downwards.
I'm not suggesting that it's all down to the semi-auto regulations, but one more tool out of the hands of criminals bent on mayhem must be a good thing.

Americans might be happy to have their regular background level of gun-deaths punctuated by atrocities, but clearly the Australians weren't - and they've fixed it.

Now that they've made it harder to cause death on a mass scale, they can look at addressing the reasons why the individual murders are occurring.

Dude, you're lying, the proof of your lie was linked and then c-p so you could see the truth.

the ban/confiscation is an utter failure by any reasonable standard.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

In THAT order.

Why should your right to liberty (owning military weapons) trump my right to life?

If tanks, bazookas and grenade launchers can be kept out of the hands of civilians, so can assault style rifles with high capacity magazines.

B/c they are not supposed to be.

It's unconstitutional to keep such arm from us.


Your right to life doesn't trump mine.

If I'm attacked by a much bigger person or better fighter. What give you the right to say I get to be beaten to death b/c I can't carry an arm with me?

so can assault style rifles with high capacity magazines ... It's unconstitutional to keep such arm from us.


It is not unconstitutional to define "Arms" - All public Firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. - public firearms, a compromise for a safe and secure society.

And THIS is why I now call liberals the anti-constitution party.


I honestly believe you will reduce the 2nd to the point that kitchen knives will need approval and baseball bats will need to be in padded containers unless being used while at bat.

 

[Two Thumbs]

B/c they are not supposed to be.

It's unconstitutional to keep such arm from us.


Your right to life doesn't trump mine.

If I'm attacked by a much bigger person or better fighter. What give you the right to say I get to be beaten to death b/c I can't carry an arm with me?

so can assault style rifles with high capacity magazines ... It's unconstitutional to keep such arm from us.


It is not unconstitutional to define "Arms" - All public Firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. - public firearms, a compromise for a safe and secure society.

I wish people would stop with the Life, Liberty, etc... That is not in the Constitution and has nothing to do with the issue.

I doubt your suggestion would stand up constitutionally. If any public entity passed such a law it would be interesting how it would be received.

The attempt to work the 2nd down to that point was stopped by the gop, at the insistence of conservatives