So, now an "Assault" weapon is any gun holding more than 10 bullets...we told you...

[progressive hunter]

What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?

Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

They're not paper targets, nicely lit and standing still like you see at the gun range. Have you ever tried hitting one or more moving targets in the dark when you fear for your life or the life of a loved one?

Have you ever seen the police take down an armed threat and the number of bullets they use? In a life or death situation, you don't have the luxury of taking a shot, stopping to see if you stopped the threat, then taking another. The police will empty their weapons to make sure the threat is neutralized.

It takes less than 3 seconds to change a mag, according to many posters here, who have told me that time and time again.
The point is, we are NOT police. We are not at war. If you're so goddamned worried about numerous targets in the dark, MOVE.

Of course it can only take a few seconds, under ideal circumstances and with no threat to your own life. How long would it take at 2:00 in the morning, after waking from a deep sleep, and trying to find a second magazine because you're not allowed to keep the firearm and ammunition together?

Let's be charitable and say 10 seconds. That's a lot of time for someone to act against you. And no, we're NOT police, and they're not going to be there in that situation, so you're on your own.

BTW, I don't own a gun. Don't want to, don't feel the need to. I can understand why people do, though.

I can understand it too, but every time there is legislation that would make gun ownership in this country just a little safer for the unarmed and possibly make it a little harder for criminals and psychos to kill us, the gun owners such as are posting here ALWAYS make the same knee jerk ridiculous arguments and say NO. Unreasonably. They're going to pay for their unreasonableness. Compromise and reason would have been better.

now whos having a knee jerk reaction???

you are aware that every criminal to date doesnt care what the law says

 

[OldLady]

Hate speech
Lol such a pansy ass concept.

Yeah, that's what the Germans said.

 

[OldLady]

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

They're not paper targets, nicely lit and standing still like you see at the gun range. Have you ever tried hitting one or more moving targets in the dark when you fear for your life or the life of a loved one?

Have you ever seen the police take down an armed threat and the number of bullets they use? In a life or death situation, you don't have the luxury of taking a shot, stopping to see if you stopped the threat, then taking another. The police will empty their weapons to make sure the threat is neutralized.

It takes less than 3 seconds to change a mag, according to many posters here, who have told me that time and time again.
The point is, we are NOT police. We are not at war. If you're so goddamned worried about numerous targets in the dark, MOVE.

Of course it can only take a few seconds, under ideal circumstances and with no threat to your own life. How long would it take at 2:00 in the morning, after waking from a deep sleep, and trying to find a second magazine because you're not allowed to keep the firearm and ammunition together?

Let's be charitable and say 10 seconds. That's a lot of time for someone to act against you. And no, we're NOT police, and they're not going to be there in that situation, so you're on your own.

BTW, I don't own a gun. Don't want to, don't feel the need to. I can understand why people do, though.

I can understand it too, but every time there is legislation that would make gun ownership in this country just a little safer for the unarmed and possibly make it a little harder for criminals and psychos to kill us, the gun owners such as are posting here ALWAYS make the same knee jerk ridiculous arguments and say NO. Unreasonably. They're going to pay for their unreasonableness. Compromise and reason would have been better.

now whos having a knee jerk reaction???

You hallucinating again, militia man?

 

[progressive hunter]

Yep.....democrats are gun grabbers to their core. They will take guns one gun, bullet and piece of equipment at a time...and as they do this the definition of each item will change to make the next grab easier.....as we now see in Virginia....it used to be the mythical "assualt" weapon was a scary looking military gun....now, it is any gun with a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets....

So...good buy to your semi automatic pistols....they are now "assault weapons."

This is the back door gun ban they dream of....one step in many to take our guns...

Smelling Blood: Virginia Democratic Governor Readies New Anti-Gun Package

Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) and Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) are also sponsoring a ban on assault weapons, defining them as any firearm with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

That these laws are unConstitutional is without question....as stated in the 2nd Amendment, as ruled on in D.C. v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago, Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia specifically stating that the AR-15 civilian rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

What does anyone want more than 10 bullets for, unless it's for an assault?
And don't say duck hunting. That's another kind of bullet.

What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?

Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

And that is still a dumb comment every time you guys say it...... self defense is not something that you can determine before the violent criminal tries to rape, rob or murder you, they may be armed too, there may be more than one, and the more bullets you have as the innocent victim, the less need you have to reload your gun...the gun you are using to save your life, or the life of your family members. That means that if you are injured, or merely dealing with the adrenaline surge of combat, you will have more bullets before you have to take the risk of changing your magazine...something made infinitely more difficult when someone is trying to rape or kill you....

Yet again this moron claims he needs large magazines for self defense while saying that large magazines are no advantage for mass shooters.

Hypocrite much?

no one has said that

 

[progressive hunter]

They're not paper targets, nicely lit and standing still like you see at the gun range. Have you ever tried hitting one or more moving targets in the dark when you fear for your life or the life of a loved one?

Have you ever seen the police take down an armed threat and the number of bullets they use? In a life or death situation, you don't have the luxury of taking a shot, stopping to see if you stopped the threat, then taking another. The police will empty their weapons to make sure the threat is neutralized.

It takes less than 3 seconds to change a mag, according to many posters here, who have told me that time and time again.
The point is, we are NOT police. We are not at war. If you're so goddamned worried about numerous targets in the dark, MOVE.

Of course it can only take a few seconds, under ideal circumstances and with no threat to your own life. How long would it take at 2:00 in the morning, after waking from a deep sleep, and trying to find a second magazine because you're not allowed to keep the firearm and ammunition together?

Let's be charitable and say 10 seconds. That's a lot of time for someone to act against you. And no, we're NOT police, and they're not going to be there in that situation, so you're on your own.

BTW, I don't own a gun. Don't want to, don't feel the need to. I can understand why people do, though.

I can understand it too, but every time there is legislation that would make gun ownership in this country just a little safer for the unarmed and possibly make it a little harder for criminals and psychos to kill us, the gun owners such as are posting here ALWAYS make the same knee jerk ridiculous arguments and say NO. Unreasonably. They're going to pay for their unreasonableness. Compromise and reason would have been better.

now whos having a knee jerk reaction???

You hallucinating again, militia man?

you are aware no criminal to date has cared what the law says???

 

[Pilot1]

We have 22,000 gun laws already on the books with HUGE restrictions on what is considered to be a Natural Right. Most of these restrictions are infringements and ILLEGAL. However, all those laws don't stop criminals who by definition don't care about yet more laws.

So more laws won't add to safety, nor security. It will only reduce the law abiding from being able to be more safe, and secure by further restricting their ability to defend themselves.

 

[hadit]

OK, what are you going to do when ten rounds hit him and the baddie doesn’t stop?

Why one cop carries 145 rounds of ammo on the job

The problem is that nothing is 100% guaranteed in real life. My own preferred weapon is the .357 Magnum. When fired, the round has nearly double the kinetic energy of the .45 used by the police officer who fired just about every single round he had on him at the baddie. He reloaded his pistol twice during the shootout. Now, the cop was using a round he believed to be superior, and extremely effective, but the baddie despite having multiple hits to “vital organs” which were “kill shots” stayed on his feet, and continued attacking.

There is no such thing as one size fits all. You make your choice, weapon, capacity, and caliber. You roll the dice that your choice was correct in that horrific moment that pits your life against the life of an attacker.

This is one of the ways in which we differ. I believe you should be free to make whatever choice you feel proper for your personal safety, and protect. I don’t encourage you to follow my reasoning. I will give you mine if you like, but in the end, it’s your life, and your choice.

As I said my Magnum is roughly twice as powerful, using the Kinetic Energy calculations, as the 9MM. It is far more powerful than the .45 used by the cop, but has similar “one shot stop” statistics from real world shootings.



Notice if you bother to watch the video, there is no weapon, none, that has a 100% one shot stop result from real world shootings. None have even as 90% one shot stop result. The best you can say is that it is a coin toss. Heads, you’ll stop the baddie, tails, you won’t. In some cases, nothing you can shoot him with will stop him. The cop from above, shot the man in the head, and he still lived at the scene.

Now, imagine you are fighting for the lives of your loved ones. You fire your ten rounds, and then what? Perhaps you stopped one baddie, but what if there were just one more baddie? They tend to travel in packs you know. We call these others accomplices.

Even if you are fortunate, and you like the cop fire your ten rounds of .45 ACP, and the baddie doesn’t stop, do you have time to reload? Or do you just toss the gun over your shoulder and accept your death?

I want you to have every tool available for your safety, I do not feel so arrogant that I believe I know what is best for you. I would never foist my choices or beliefs upon you.

If you believe ten rounds is enough, then make your play, but don’t push your belief on anyone else. Your rights end, where mine begin. That has long been the truth of equality under the law.

Sorry, but gun owners' rights END where innocent civilian lives are being taken, on a daily basis. You people need to wake up.
You don't need to worry about it anyway--you've got a Magnum.

My rights end when someone else abuses theirs? How totalitarian of you.

You aren't losing your rights by being restricted to ten bullets at a time.

Do you lose your first amendment rights if you're restricted to publishing 100 words or less at any one time? If you're restricted to only using dialup speeds to write on a debate board? Words are deadly too. Should we only allow licensed writers to write opinions?

To you, no one is being harmed by restrictions, but that's not your call.

We should have a debate sometime on whether the pen is mightier than the sword. But as much as some here might wish it, their words have not killed me yet. And that Constitutional right is also restricted -- heard of hate speech or incitement to riot?

Of course. I'm deliberately not talking about controlling content. Your stance is that you don't lose your rights if the number of bullets in your gun is restricted, so I'm focusing on the mechanisms surrounding speech. Do you lose your free speech rights if the government decides too many words are dangerous and restricts the number you can say publicly at any one time? Would you if they forced a cooling off period between the time you went to buy a data plan and the time you were allowed to post on a debate board? Would you be concerned about losing your right to free speech if every time a teenager committed suicide because of mean things people said online, a sizable number of politicians started talking about the need to regulate who can speak freely, where they can speak, and how the Constitution was written when the only public written communication was a newspaper that took days to become available and the writers never envisioned a single person with the ability to reach thousands mere seconds after writing something?

Freedom is messy and dangerous. It's also preferable to the alternative.

 

[RealDave]

What does anyone want more than 10 bullets for, unless it's for an assault?
And don't say duck hunting. That's another kind of bullet.

What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?

Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

And that is still a dumb comment every time you guys say it...... self defense is not something that you can determine before the violent criminal tries to rape, rob or murder you, they may be armed too, there may be more than one, and the more bullets you have as the innocent victim, the less need you have to reload your gun...the gun you are using to save your life, or the life of your family members. That means that if you are injured, or merely dealing with the adrenaline surge of combat, you will have more bullets before you have to take the risk of changing your magazine...something made infinitely more difficult when someone is trying to rape or kill you....

Yet again this moron claims he needs large magazines for self defense while saying that large magazines are no advantage for mass shooters.

Hypocrite much?

no one has said that

Either you are the worlds biggest liar or have not read the posts here about mass shootings & magazines.

 

[Yarddog]

Yep.....democrats are gun grabbers to their core. They will take guns one gun, bullet and piece of equipment at a time...and as they do this the definition of each item will change to make the next grab easier.....as we now see in Virginia....it used to be the mythical "assualt" weapon was a scary looking military gun....now, it is any gun with a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets....

So...good buy to your semi automatic pistols....they are now "assault weapons."

This is the back door gun ban they dream of....one step in many to take our guns...

Smelling Blood: Virginia Democratic Governor Readies New Anti-Gun Package

Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) and Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) are also sponsoring a ban on assault weapons, defining them as any firearm with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

That these laws are unConstitutional is without question....as stated in the 2nd Amendment, as ruled on in D.C. v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago, Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia specifically stating that the AR-15 civilian rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

What does anyone want more than 10 bullets for, unless it's for an assault?
And don't say duck hunting. That's another kind of bullet.

What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?

Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

You can shoot a big guy three times unless your using a 45 maybe..and he can keep coming at you. Especially because in those situations people are running on pure adrenaline. Three guys break into your house or business? well, you know.. its safer just to give up every time right? just hope they don't hurt you.

The law allows for ten. Why are you telling me THREE is not enough?

because I figured you had enough sense to add up what happens if there are three assailants. maybe you dont need to fire any shots. maybe you just need to point it at them and they will back on off, but at least you will have the confidence that you have ten rounds in your gun and you can afford to miss with a couple and not be defenseless.

 

[RealDave]

Sorry, but gun owners' rights END where innocent civilian lives are being taken, on a daily basis. You people need to wake up.
You don't need to worry about it anyway--you've got a Magnum.

My rights end when someone else abuses theirs? How totalitarian of you.

You aren't losing your rights by being restricted to ten bullets at a time.

Do you lose your first amendment rights if you're restricted to publishing 100 words or less at any one time? If you're restricted to only using dialup speeds to write on a debate board? Words are deadly too. Should we only allow licensed writers to write opinions?

To you, no one is being harmed by restrictions, but that's not your call.

We should have a debate sometime on whether the pen is mightier than the sword. But as much as some here might wish it, their words have not killed me yet. And that Constitutional right is also restricted -- heard of hate speech or incitement to riot?

Of course. I'm deliberately not talking about controlling content. Your stance is that you don't lose your rights if the number of bullets in your gun is restricted, so I'm focusing on the mechanisms surrounding speech. Do you lose your free speech rights if the government decides too many words are dangerous and restricts the number you can say publicly at any one time? Would you if they forced a cooling off period between the time you went to buy a data plan and the time you were allowed to post on a debate board? Would you be concerned about losing your right to free speech if every time a teenager committed suicide because of mean things people said online, a sizable number of politicians started talking about the need to regulate who can speak freely, where they can speak, and how the Constitution was written when the only public written communication was a newspaper that took days to become available and the writers never envisioned a single person with the ability to reach thousands mere seconds after writing something?

Freedom is messy and dangerous. It's also preferable to the alternative.

So my rights to free speech are violated by Twitter?

 

[progressive hunter]

What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?

Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

And that is still a dumb comment every time you guys say it...... self defense is not something that you can determine before the violent criminal tries to rape, rob or murder you, they may be armed too, there may be more than one, and the more bullets you have as the innocent victim, the less need you have to reload your gun...the gun you are using to save your life, or the life of your family members. That means that if you are injured, or merely dealing with the adrenaline surge of combat, you will have more bullets before you have to take the risk of changing your magazine...something made infinitely more difficult when someone is trying to rape or kill you....

Yet again this moron claims he needs large magazines for self defense while saying that large magazines are no advantage for mass shooters.

Hypocrite much?

no one has said that

Either you are the worlds biggest liar or have not read the posts here about mass shootings & magazines.

you are aware that no criminal to date has cared what the law says???

if not now you do,,,

 

[hadit]

What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?

Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

They're not paper targets, nicely lit and standing still like you see at the gun range. Have you ever tried hitting one or more moving targets in the dark when you fear for your life or the life of a loved one?

Have you ever seen the police take down an armed threat and the number of bullets they use? In a life or death situation, you don't have the luxury of taking a shot, stopping to see if you stopped the threat, then taking another. The police will empty their weapons to make sure the threat is neutralized.

It takes less than 3 seconds to change a mag, according to many posters here, who have told me that time and time again.
The point is, we are NOT police. We are not at war. If you're so goddamned worried about numerous targets in the dark, MOVE.

Of course it can only take a few seconds, under ideal circumstances and with no threat to your own life. How long would it take at 2:00 in the morning, after waking from a deep sleep, and trying to find a second magazine because you're not allowed to keep the firearm and ammunition together?

Let's be charitable and say 10 seconds. That's a lot of time for someone to act against you. And no, we're NOT police, and they're not going to be there in that situation, so you're on your own.

BTW, I don't own a gun. Don't want to, don't feel the need to. I can understand why people do, though.

I can understand it too, but every time there is legislation that would make gun ownership in this country just a little safer for the unarmed and possibly make it a little harder for criminals and psychos to kill us, the gun owners such as are posting here ALWAYS make the same knee jerk ridiculous arguments and say NO. Unreasonably. They're going to pay for their unreasonableness. Compromise and reason would have been better.

There are millions of gun owners and hundreds of millions of guns in this country that will never harm another human being. I don't fear Bubba who carries a sidearm and has a shotgun in his truck. I don't fear average Joe whose house was burglarized and his wife raped in front of him and now has a firearm in his house. These legislative steps will do absolutely nothing to increase safety. Nothing.

Therefore, there has to be a different reason for doing them.

 

[progressive hunter]

My rights end when someone else abuses theirs? How totalitarian of you.

You aren't losing your rights by being restricted to ten bullets at a time.

Do you lose your first amendment rights if you're restricted to publishing 100 words or less at any one time? If you're restricted to only using dialup speeds to write on a debate board? Words are deadly too. Should we only allow licensed writers to write opinions?

To you, no one is being harmed by restrictions, but that's not your call.

We should have a debate sometime on whether the pen is mightier than the sword. But as much as some here might wish it, their words have not killed me yet. And that Constitutional right is also restricted -- heard of hate speech or incitement to riot?

Of course. I'm deliberately not talking about controlling content. Your stance is that you don't lose your rights if the number of bullets in your gun is restricted, so I'm focusing on the mechanisms surrounding speech. Do you lose your free speech rights if the government decides too many words are dangerous and restricts the number you can say publicly at any one time? Would you if they forced a cooling off period between the time you went to buy a data plan and the time you were allowed to post on a debate board? Would you be concerned about losing your right to free speech if every time a teenager committed suicide because of mean things people said online, a sizable number of politicians started talking about the need to regulate who can speak freely, where they can speak, and how the Constitution was written when the only public written communication was a newspaper that took days to become available and the writers never envisioned a single person with the ability to reach thousands mere seconds after writing something?

Freedom is messy and dangerous. It's also preferable to the alternative.

So my rights to free speech are violated by Twitter?

the 1st protects you from government not twitter

 

[RealDave]

You aren't losing your rights by being restricted to ten bullets at a time.

Do you lose your first amendment rights if you're restricted to publishing 100 words or less at any one time? If you're restricted to only using dialup speeds to write on a debate board? Words are deadly too. Should we only allow licensed writers to write opinions?

To you, no one is being harmed by restrictions, but that's not your call.

We should have a debate sometime on whether the pen is mightier than the sword. But as much as some here might wish it, their words have not killed me yet. And that Constitutional right is also restricted -- heard of hate speech or incitement to riot?

Of course. I'm deliberately not talking about controlling content. Your stance is that you don't lose your rights if the number of bullets in your gun is restricted, so I'm focusing on the mechanisms surrounding speech. Do you lose your free speech rights if the government decides too many words are dangerous and restricts the number you can say publicly at any one time? Would you if they forced a cooling off period between the time you went to buy a data plan and the time you were allowed to post on a debate board? Would you be concerned about losing your right to free speech if every time a teenager committed suicide because of mean things people said online, a sizable number of politicians started talking about the need to regulate who can speak freely, where they can speak, and how the Constitution was written when the only public written communication was a newspaper that took days to become available and the writers never envisioned a single person with the ability to reach thousands mere seconds after writing something?

Freedom is messy and dangerous. It's also preferable to the alternative.

So my rights to free speech are violated by Twitter?

More than government.



the 1st protects you from government not twitter

 

[progressive hunter]

What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?

Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

And that is still a dumb comment every time you guys say it...... self defense is not something that you can determine before the violent criminal tries to rape, rob or murder you, they may be armed too, there may be more than one, and the more bullets you have as the innocent victim, the less need you have to reload your gun...the gun you are using to save your life, or the life of your family members. That means that if you are injured, or merely dealing with the adrenaline surge of combat, you will have more bullets before you have to take the risk of changing your magazine...something made infinitely more difficult when someone is trying to rape or kill you....

Yet again this moron claims he needs large magazines for self defense while saying that large magazines are no advantage for mass shooters.

Hypocrite much?

no one has said that

Either you are the worlds biggest liar or have not read the posts here about mass shootings & magazines.

and the worlds biggest liar is still donald trump with the democrat party running a close 2nd

 

[hadit]

My rights end when someone else abuses theirs? How totalitarian of you.

You aren't losing your rights by being restricted to ten bullets at a time.

Do you lose your first amendment rights if you're restricted to publishing 100 words or less at any one time? If you're restricted to only using dialup speeds to write on a debate board? Words are deadly too. Should we only allow licensed writers to write opinions?

To you, no one is being harmed by restrictions, but that's not your call.

We should have a debate sometime on whether the pen is mightier than the sword. But as much as some here might wish it, their words have not killed me yet. And that Constitutional right is also restricted -- heard of hate speech or incitement to riot?

Of course. I'm deliberately not talking about controlling content. Your stance is that you don't lose your rights if the number of bullets in your gun is restricted, so I'm focusing on the mechanisms surrounding speech. Do you lose your free speech rights if the government decides too many words are dangerous and restricts the number you can say publicly at any one time? Would you if they forced a cooling off period between the time you went to buy a data plan and the time you were allowed to post on a debate board? Would you be concerned about losing your right to free speech if every time a teenager committed suicide because of mean things people said online, a sizable number of politicians started talking about the need to regulate who can speak freely, where they can speak, and how the Constitution was written when the only public written communication was a newspaper that took days to become available and the writers never envisioned a single person with the ability to reach thousands mere seconds after writing something?

Freedom is messy and dangerous. It's also preferable to the alternative.

So my rights to free speech are violated by Twitter?

Twitter is a private company, so it doesn't relate. You do understand the difference?

 

[OldLady]

We have 22,000 gun laws already on the books with HUGE restrictions on what is considered to be a Natural Right. Most of these restrictions are infringements and ILLEGAL. However, all those laws don't stop criminals who by definition don't care about yet more laws.

So more laws won't add to safety, nor security. It will only reduce the law abiding from being able to be more safe, and secure by further restricting their ability to defend themselves.

With the # of rounds in a mag limited to 10 in this country, they won't be sold and therefore, they will be much harder for criminals to obtain. Just like everyone else. Why do you think terrorists in Europe are using knives and vehicles and IED's? BECAUSE IT IS SO HARD TO GET/USE A GUN there.
If it works everywhere else in the world, it can work in this country. But you folks seem to want to keep some imagined natural right to kill people.

 

[progressive hunter]

We have 22,000 gun laws already on the books with HUGE restrictions on what is considered to be a Natural Right. Most of these restrictions are infringements and ILLEGAL. However, all those laws don't stop criminals who by definition don't care about yet more laws.

So more laws won't add to safety, nor security. It will only reduce the law abiding from being able to be more safe, and secure by further restricting their ability to defend themselves.

With the # of rounds in a mag limited to 10 in this country, they won't be sold and therefore, they will be much harder for criminals to obtain. Just like everyone else. Why do you think terrorists in Europe are using knives and vehicles and IED's? BECAUSE IT IS SO HARD TO GET/USE A GUN there.
If it works everywhere else in the world, it can work in this country. But you folks seem to want to keep some imagined natural right to kill people.

thats closing the barn door after the cows got out,,,

there are millions already in the public domain

and it doesnt work anywhere in the world,,,every country has people killing other people

 

[OldLady]

What does anyone want more than 10 bullets for, unless it's for an assault?
And don't say duck hunting. That's another kind of bullet.

What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?

Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

You can shoot a big guy three times unless your using a 45 maybe..and he can keep coming at you. Especially because in those situations people are running on pure adrenaline. Three guys break into your house or business? well, you know.. its safer just to give up every time right? just hope they don't hurt you.

The law allows for ten. Why are you telling me THREE is not enough?

because I figured you had enough sense to add up what happens if there are three assailants. maybe you dont need to fire any shots. maybe you just need to point it at them and they will back on off, but at least you will have the confidence that you have ten rounds in your gun and you can afford to miss with a couple and not be defenseless.

Ten is enough to discourage three bad guys.

 

[progressive hunter]

We have 22,000 gun laws already on the books with HUGE restrictions on what is considered to be a Natural Right. Most of these restrictions are infringements and ILLEGAL. However, all those laws don't stop criminals who by definition don't care about yet more laws.

So more laws won't add to safety, nor security. It will only reduce the law abiding from being able to be more safe, and secure by further restricting their ability to defend themselves.

With the # of rounds in a mag limited to 10 in this country, they won't be sold and therefore, they will be much harder for criminals to obtain. Just like everyone else. Why do you think terrorists in Europe are using knives and vehicles and IED's? BECAUSE IT IS SO HARD TO GET/USE A GUN there.
If it works everywhere else in the world, it can work in this country. But you folks seem to want to keep some imagined natural right to kill people.

maybe its you that needs to move to a country more to your liking since you hate it here so much