Why Do I Need More Than 10 Rounds?

[miketx]

I just love all this posturing of the rightwinggunnutters. Notice how hard they try and twist and wind anything and everything. And as hard as they try (they are afterall nutcases) they are failing. They are just getting in the way as more people die needlessly. Everyone that disagrees even the slightest wants to ban all firearms. Anyone that disagrees slightly is a "(&()^% Liberal.....spit on floor", They fight the coming of the common sense firearms regulations tooth and nail. Well, cupcakes. enough people have died in the last couple of weeks even the Republicans are starting to talk about two items that need to be added to the National Firearms Regulations and those two are Universal Background Checks and Red Flag Laws. The more you block those two, the more needless death of innocents will continue.

Okay, you nutcases, we can never stop all the shootings. But what we can do is minimize them and when they do happen, minimize the body count. Ok, you Rexall Rangers, you want to look at it like Military? ALL Military Commanders look at the battle and find ways to minimize the body count of their own troops. In this case, as a Sillyvillian, we need to look at how to lower the body count of the Civilians. The shooting will still happen but what can we do to minimize the body count. You want to accept the possibility of a high body count because it might bother you a bit. Well, those families of those dead from that high body count are certainly bothered. You want to talk about your Constitutional Rights being infringed upon well you don't get any more infringed on than by being mowed down in a mass shooting that could have either been prevented or minimized. Rather than talk about your silliness, talk about the rights of the dead, wounded and traumatized of these mass shootings and how they can be either prevented or minmized. And don't say by arming everyone there. The Cops won't be able to identify the real shooter anymore than the armed crowd will. Present a real solution.

You're not going to minimize any body counts by making life for the law abiding more troublesome or blaming the inanimate object, which is what every one of the gun grabbers do.

You are still no help. Try again. This time, without the nonsense. Do I sound like a gungrabber? You mean you can't carry on a reasonable conversation with me?

No regressive stain such as you wants a reasonable convo.

 

[Crixus]

"Why do I need to justify and/or explain anything that is my right to you, do-gooder?"

Because rights can be changed even if we don't want that to be possible. It's probably a good idea to have a good argument for why it shouldn't happen when they try.

Why does he or anyone need a good argument? Because we want to is good enough period.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I just love all this posturing of the rightwinggunnutters. Notice how hard they try and twist and wind anything and everything. And as hard as they try (they are afterall nutcases) they are failing. They are just getting in the way as more people die needlessly. Everyone that disagrees even the slightest wants to ban all firearms. Anyone that disagrees slightly is a "(&()^% Liberal.....spit on floor", They fight the coming of the common sense firearms regulations tooth and nail. Well, cupcakes. enough people have died in the last couple of weeks even the Republicans are starting to talk about two items that need to be added to the National Firearms Regulations and those two are Universal Background Checks and Red Flag Laws. The more you block those two, the more needless death of innocents will continue.

Okay, you nutcases, we can never stop all the shootings. But what we can do is minimize them and when they do happen, minimize the body count. Ok, you Rexall Rangers, you want to look at it like Military? ALL Military Commanders look at the battle and find ways to minimize the body count of their own troops. In this case, as a Sillyvillian, we need to look at how to lower the body count of the Civilians. The shooting will still happen but what can we do to minimize the body count. You want to accept the possibility of a high body count because it might bother you a bit. Well, those families of those dead from that high body count are certainly bothered. You want to talk about your Constitutional Rights being infringed upon well you don't get any more infringed on than by being mowed down in a mass shooting that could have either been prevented or minimized. Rather than talk about your silliness, talk about the rights of the dead, wounded and traumatized of these mass shootings and how they can be either prevented or minmized. And don't say by arming everyone there. The Cops won't be able to identify the real shooter anymore than the armed crowd will. Present a real solution.

You're not going to minimize any body counts by making life for the law abiding more troublesome or blaming the inanimate object, which is what every one of the gun grabbers do.

You are still no help. Try again. This time, without the nonsense. Do I sound like a gungrabber? You mean you can't carry on a reasonable conversation with me?

What do you propose that you consider common-sense gun laws?

I've already said what I thought. It's your turn. What do YOU consider as common-sense gun laws? And the response of "No Gun Laws" doesn't cut it when over 80% of the population would disagree. Be reasonable.

 

[Oddball]

I just love all this posturing of the rightwinggunnutters. Notice how hard they try and twist and wind anything and everything. And as hard as they try (they are afterall nutcases) they are failing. They are just getting in the way as more people die needlessly. Everyone that disagrees even the slightest wants to ban all firearms. Anyone that disagrees slightly is a "(&()^% Liberal.....spit on floor", They fight the coming of the common sense firearms regulations tooth and nail. Well, cupcakes. enough people have died in the last couple of weeks even the Republicans are starting to talk about two items that need to be added to the National Firearms Regulations and those two are Universal Background Checks and Red Flag Laws. The more you block those two, the more needless death of innocents will continue.

Okay, you nutcases, we can never stop all the shootings. But what we can do is minimize them and when they do happen, minimize the body count. Ok, you Rexall Rangers, you want to look at it like Military? ALL Military Commanders look at the battle and find ways to minimize the body count of their own troops. In this case, as a Sillyvillian, we need to look at how to lower the body count of the Civilians. The shooting will still happen but what can we do to minimize the body count. You want to accept the possibility of a high body count because it might bother you a bit. Well, those families of those dead from that high body count are certainly bothered. You want to talk about your Constitutional Rights being infringed upon well you don't get any more infringed on than by being mowed down in a mass shooting that could have either been prevented or minimized. Rather than talk about your silliness, talk about the rights of the dead, wounded and traumatized of these mass shootings and how they can be either prevented or minmized. And don't say by arming everyone there. The Cops won't be able to identify the real shooter anymore than the armed crowd will. Present a real solution.

You're not going to minimize any body counts by making life for the law abiding more troublesome or blaming the inanimate object, which is what every one of the gun grabbers do.

You are still no help. Try again. This time, without the nonsense. Do I sound like a gungrabber? You mean you can't carry on a reasonable conversation with me?

What do you propose that you consider common-sense gun laws?

I've already said what I thought. It's your turn. What do YOU consider as common-sense gun laws? And the response of "No Gun Laws" doesn't cut it when over 80% of the population would disagree. Be reasonable.

If 80% of the population was good with legalizing looting, would you also demand that we needed "common sense" looting laws, to keep it all safe and orderly?

 

[Oddball]

I just love all this posturing of the rightwinggunnutters. Notice how hard they try and twist and wind anything and everything. And as hard as they try (they are afterall nutcases) they are failing. They are just getting in the way as more people die needlessly. Everyone that disagrees even the slightest wants to ban all firearms. Anyone that disagrees slightly is a "(&()^% Liberal.....spit on floor", They fight the coming of the common sense firearms regulations tooth and nail. Well, cupcakes. enough people have died in the last couple of weeks even the Republicans are starting to talk about two items that need to be added to the National Firearms Regulations and those two are Universal Background Checks and Red Flag Laws. The more you block those two, the more needless death of innocents will continue.

Okay, you nutcases, we can never stop all the shootings. But what we can do is minimize them and when they do happen, minimize the body count. Ok, you Rexall Rangers, you want to look at it like Military? ALL Military Commanders look at the battle and find ways to minimize the body count of their own troops. In this case, as a Sillyvillian, we need to look at how to lower the body count of the Civilians. The shooting will still happen but what can we do to minimize the body count. You want to accept the possibility of a high body count because it might bother you a bit. Well, those families of those dead from that high body count are certainly bothered. You want to talk about your Constitutional Rights being infringed upon well you don't get any more infringed on than by being mowed down in a mass shooting that could have either been prevented or minimized. Rather than talk about your silliness, talk about the rights of the dead, wounded and traumatized of these mass shootings and how they can be either prevented or minmized. And don't say by arming everyone there. The Cops won't be able to identify the real shooter anymore than the armed crowd will. Present a real solution.

You're not going to minimize any body counts by making life for the law abiding more troublesome or blaming the inanimate object, which is what every one of the gun grabbers do.

You are still no help. Try again. This time, without the nonsense. Do I sound like a gungrabber? You mean you can't carry on a reasonable conversation with me?

Yes, you sound like a gun grabber.

You walk like a duck, you swim like a duck, you quack like a duck.....

 

[miketx]

I just love all this posturing of the rightwinggunnutters. Notice how hard they try and twist and wind anything and everything. And as hard as they try (they are afterall nutcases) they are failing. They are just getting in the way as more people die needlessly. Everyone that disagrees even the slightest wants to ban all firearms. Anyone that disagrees slightly is a "(&()^% Liberal.....spit on floor", They fight the coming of the common sense firearms regulations tooth and nail. Well, cupcakes. enough people have died in the last couple of weeks even the Republicans are starting to talk about two items that need to be added to the National Firearms Regulations and those two are Universal Background Checks and Red Flag Laws. The more you block those two, the more needless death of innocents will continue.

Okay, you nutcases, we can never stop all the shootings. But what we can do is minimize them and when they do happen, minimize the body count. Ok, you Rexall Rangers, you want to look at it like Military? ALL Military Commanders look at the battle and find ways to minimize the body count of their own troops. In this case, as a Sillyvillian, we need to look at how to lower the body count of the Civilians. The shooting will still happen but what can we do to minimize the body count. You want to accept the possibility of a high body count because it might bother you a bit. Well, those families of those dead from that high body count are certainly bothered. You want to talk about your Constitutional Rights being infringed upon well you don't get any more infringed on than by being mowed down in a mass shooting that could have either been prevented or minimized. Rather than talk about your silliness, talk about the rights of the dead, wounded and traumatized of these mass shootings and how they can be either prevented or minmized. And don't say by arming everyone there. The Cops won't be able to identify the real shooter anymore than the armed crowd will. Present a real solution.

You're not going to minimize any body counts by making life for the law abiding more troublesome or blaming the inanimate object, which is what every one of the gun grabbers do.

You are still no help. Try again. This time, without the nonsense. Do I sound like a gungrabber? You mean you can't carry on a reasonable conversation with me?

What do you propose that you consider common-sense gun laws?

I've already said what I thought. It's your turn. What do YOU consider as common-sense gun laws? And the response of "No Gun Laws" doesn't cut it when over 80% of the population would disagree. Be reasonable.

We already have too many guns laws and some of them are helping the murderers. What is needed is quick, severe punishment for felons in possession of a gun, and even more harsh punishment for using it! No probation, no parole, mandatory hard lengthy time. Cowardly, filthy, crime loving liberals REFUSE to do this. That's my idea of sensible. Stop slapping them on the wrist. Also, when someone pulls a gun in the commission of a crime gun-free zones should be nonexistent and every effort should have been put into place for either a regular Joe or Jane or off duty cops, etc., to kill them dead! You wanna stop this madness, do what I have stated and stop spewing traitor bullshit out your backside! Face it though, this is the last thing your kind wants.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I just love all this posturing of the rightwinggunnutters. Notice how hard they try and twist and wind anything and everything. And as hard as they try (they are afterall nutcases) they are failing. They are just getting in the way as more people die needlessly. Everyone that disagrees even the slightest wants to ban all firearms. Anyone that disagrees slightly is a "(&()^% Liberal.....spit on floor", They fight the coming of the common sense firearms regulations tooth and nail. Well, cupcakes. enough people have died in the last couple of weeks even the Republicans are starting to talk about two items that need to be added to the National Firearms Regulations and those two are Universal Background Checks and Red Flag Laws. The more you block those two, the more needless death of innocents will continue.

Okay, you nutcases, we can never stop all the shootings. But what we can do is minimize them and when they do happen, minimize the body count. Ok, you Rexall Rangers, you want to look at it like Military? ALL Military Commanders look at the battle and find ways to minimize the body count of their own troops. In this case, as a Sillyvillian, we need to look at how to lower the body count of the Civilians. The shooting will still happen but what can we do to minimize the body count. You want to accept the possibility of a high body count because it might bother you a bit. Well, those families of those dead from that high body count are certainly bothered. You want to talk about your Constitutional Rights being infringed upon well you don't get any more infringed on than by being mowed down in a mass shooting that could have either been prevented or minimized. Rather than talk about your silliness, talk about the rights of the dead, wounded and traumatized of these mass shootings and how they can be either prevented or minmized. And don't say by arming everyone there. The Cops won't be able to identify the real shooter anymore than the armed crowd will. Present a real solution.

You're not going to minimize any body counts by making life for the law abiding more troublesome or blaming the inanimate object, which is what every one of the gun grabbers do.

You are still no help. Try again. This time, without the nonsense. Do I sound like a gungrabber? You mean you can't carry on a reasonable conversation with me?

What do you propose that you consider common-sense gun laws?

I've already said what I thought. It's your turn. What do YOU consider as common-sense gun laws? And the response of "No Gun Laws" doesn't cut it when over 80% of the population would disagree. Be reasonable.

If 80% of the population was good with legalizing looting, would you also demand that we needed "common sense" looting laws, to keep it all safe and orderly?

So what you are saying is that you only want to complain, not work on solutions. So be it. We'll do it without you while we ignore you.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I just love all this posturing of the rightwinggunnutters. Notice how hard they try and twist and wind anything and everything. And as hard as they try (they are afterall nutcases) they are failing. They are just getting in the way as more people die needlessly. Everyone that disagrees even the slightest wants to ban all firearms. Anyone that disagrees slightly is a "(&()^% Liberal.....spit on floor", They fight the coming of the common sense firearms regulations tooth and nail. Well, cupcakes. enough people have died in the last couple of weeks even the Republicans are starting to talk about two items that need to be added to the National Firearms Regulations and those two are Universal Background Checks and Red Flag Laws. The more you block those two, the more needless death of innocents will continue.

Okay, you nutcases, we can never stop all the shootings. But what we can do is minimize them and when they do happen, minimize the body count. Ok, you Rexall Rangers, you want to look at it like Military? ALL Military Commanders look at the battle and find ways to minimize the body count of their own troops. In this case, as a Sillyvillian, we need to look at how to lower the body count of the Civilians. The shooting will still happen but what can we do to minimize the body count. You want to accept the possibility of a high body count because it might bother you a bit. Well, those families of those dead from that high body count are certainly bothered. You want to talk about your Constitutional Rights being infringed upon well you don't get any more infringed on than by being mowed down in a mass shooting that could have either been prevented or minimized. Rather than talk about your silliness, talk about the rights of the dead, wounded and traumatized of these mass shootings and how they can be either prevented or minmized. And don't say by arming everyone there. The Cops won't be able to identify the real shooter anymore than the armed crowd will. Present a real solution.

You're not going to minimize any body counts by making life for the law abiding more troublesome or blaming the inanimate object, which is what every one of the gun grabbers do.

You are still no help. Try again. This time, without the nonsense. Do I sound like a gungrabber? You mean you can't carry on a reasonable conversation with me?

Yes, you sound like a gun grabber.

You walk like a duck, you swim like a duck, you quack like a duck.....

Ignore, ignore, ignore. But I believe you are used to that by now.

 

[Oddball]

You're not going to minimize any body counts by making life for the law abiding more troublesome or blaming the inanimate object, which is what every one of the gun grabbers do.

You are still no help. Try again. This time, without the nonsense. Do I sound like a gungrabber? You mean you can't carry on a reasonable conversation with me?

What do you propose that you consider common-sense gun laws?

I've already said what I thought. It's your turn. What do YOU consider as common-sense gun laws? And the response of "No Gun Laws" doesn't cut it when over 80% of the population would disagree. Be reasonable.

If 80% of the population was good with legalizing looting, would you also demand that we needed "common sense" looting laws, to keep it all safe and orderly?

So what you are saying is that you only want to complain, not work on solutions. So be it. We'll do it without you while we ignore you.

When your "solutions" don't apply to to the people committing the criminal acts, then it is YOU who is disinterested in any solutions....You just want feel-good garbage that goes with the herd and will show no positive results, which makes you a bigger problem than the shooters.

 

[Lastamender]

Because someday THIRTEEN shitlords might decide to smash their way into my house, that's why.

'I Could Die': Suspects Trash House During Md. Home Invasion

11 bad guys.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You are still no help. Try again. This time, without the nonsense. Do I sound like a gungrabber? You mean you can't carry on a reasonable conversation with me?

What do you propose that you consider common-sense gun laws?

I've already said what I thought. It's your turn. What do YOU consider as common-sense gun laws? And the response of "No Gun Laws" doesn't cut it when over 80% of the population would disagree. Be reasonable.

If 80% of the population was good with legalizing looting, would you also demand that we needed "common sense" looting laws, to keep it all safe and orderly?

So what you are saying is that you only want to complain, not work on solutions. So be it. We'll do it without you while we ignore you.

When your "solutions" don't apply to to the people committing the criminal acts, then it is YOU who is disinterested in any solutions....You just want feel-good garbage that goes with the herd and will show no positive results, which makes you a bigger problem than the shooters.

So now you are speaking for me. No wonder you get ignored all the time. If you don't present solutions then you are just jamming up the internet with white (power) noise. And as of last week, you ceased to be a factor therefore, you ceased to be a problem. Nice going making yourself irrelevant.

 

[Oddball]

What do you propose that you consider common-sense gun laws?

I've already said what I thought. It's your turn. What do YOU consider as common-sense gun laws? And the response of "No Gun Laws" doesn't cut it when over 80% of the population would disagree. Be reasonable.

If 80% of the population was good with legalizing looting, would you also demand that we needed "common sense" looting laws, to keep it all safe and orderly?

So what you are saying is that you only want to complain, not work on solutions. So be it. We'll do it without you while we ignore you.

When your "solutions" don't apply to to the people committing the criminal acts, then it is YOU who is disinterested in any solutions....You just want feel-good garbage that goes with the herd and will show no positive results, which makes you a bigger problem than the shooters.

So now you are speaking for me. No wonder you get ignored all the time. If you don't present solutions then you are just jamming up the internet with white (power) noise. And as of last week, you ceased to be a factor therefore, you ceased to be a problem. Nice going making yourself irrelevant.

Oh, fuck you...I've seen what your "common sense" bullshit looks like, and it will be just as ineffective as the last slew of "common sense" laws and regulations...You really think you're above the fray and full of reason, but you're full of nothing but hot air and piety.

The only solution that is of any value to you gun grabbers is total confiscation, and anyone with a lick of that "common sense" thing can see it.

 

[ranfunck]

You want to stop mass shootings contact your congressman and ask them to stop it that simple
Your welcome.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't think I need more than 10 rounds. My Springfield M1911 hold 8, and I have several magazines loaded and ready. Our .357 revolvers hold 6. Very accurate and the round is potent.

Having said all that, my right to own a gun does not change if I do not try to justify it. If a law is passed against magazines holding 10 rounds or more, and the crime rate does not drop, will the next law require fewer than 8? Or 6?

The 2nd Amendment is not about how many rounds. It is about the right to be armed. And yes, I know the people who wrote it did so at a time when rifles and handguns were muzzleloading single shots. But those muzzle loading single shots were the cutting edge military weapons at the time.

“The 2nd Amendment is not about how many rounds.”

In fact it is.

The courts have held that the Second Amendment applies to both ammunition and magazine capacity.

San Francisco County’s ban on the sale of hollow point ammunition within its jurisdiction was upheld by the courts.

And Colorado’s magazine capacity restriction was ruled to be Constitutional.

There is an unofficial ruling nicknamed the "Heller Ruling" that a 10 round limit is unconstitutional while a 15 round is constitutional. Colorado originally passed a 10 round but got overturned. So they immediately rewrote it to 15 rounds and it was upheld. Recently, idiot Oregon passed a 10 round law and you can bet that's going to be overturned. California also passed a 10 round law but changed it to 15 rounds. If you take a good look at Heller V you can read into it "Common". And the Courts find 15 as common and 10 as uncommon when dealing with semi auto weapons.

It’s precedent.

Government regulation of ammunition is within the scope of Second Amendment jurisprudence.

What’s interesting about the San Francisco County case is that although the sale of hollow point ammunition is prohibited, its possession is not. Residents of the county may purchase such ammunition elsewhere and legally bring it into the jurisdiction.

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

I admittedly lack sufficient knowledge about guns and gun ammunition to make any declarative statements but thinking about it I don't know if limiting the amount of bullets someone has available to them is going to make as much of an impact as limiting the power of the gun shooting the bullet. If we were to regulate the power of the guns that are available for purchase it could help reduce the amount of powerful guns being bought by people intent on doing harm with them one day but at the same time it wouldn't really do anything about removing existing guns already in the hands of people with potential intent to do harm. A good hearted person with a powerful weapon in their home who has no intent of doing bad things is not dangerous, but the person who has turned from God that has that same weapon probably could be or will be dangerous. Same gun but different potential outcome. I don't think there is a good answer. You would think there is a happy middle somewhere between total gun confiscation and total gun freedom.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I don't think I need more than 10 rounds. My Springfield M1911 hold 8, and I have several magazines loaded and ready. Our .357 revolvers hold 6. Very accurate and the round is potent.

Having said all that, my right to own a gun does not change if I do not try to justify it. If a law is passed against magazines holding 10 rounds or more, and the crime rate does not drop, will the next law require fewer than 8? Or 6?

The 2nd Amendment is not about how many rounds. It is about the right to be armed. And yes, I know the people who wrote it did so at a time when rifles and handguns were muzzleloading single shots. But those muzzle loading single shots were the cutting edge military weapons at the time.

“The 2nd Amendment is not about how many rounds.”

In fact it is.

The courts have held that the Second Amendment applies to both ammunition and magazine capacity.

San Francisco County’s ban on the sale of hollow point ammunition within its jurisdiction was upheld by the courts.

And Colorado’s magazine capacity restriction was ruled to be Constitutional.

There is an unofficial ruling nicknamed the "Heller Ruling" that a 10 round limit is unconstitutional while a 15 round is constitutional. Colorado originally passed a 10 round but got overturned. So they immediately rewrote it to 15 rounds and it was upheld. Recently, idiot Oregon passed a 10 round law and you can bet that's going to be overturned. California also passed a 10 round law but changed it to 15 rounds. If you take a good look at Heller V you can read into it "Common". And the Courts find 15 as common and 10 as uncommon when dealing with semi auto weapons.

It’s precedent.

Government regulation of ammunition is within the scope of Second Amendment jurisprudence.

What’s interesting about the San Francisco County case is that although the sale of hollow point ammunition is prohibited, its possession is not. Residents of the county may purchase such ammunition elsewhere and legally bring it into the jurisdiction.

Therein lies the problem almost every Urban area is having. Until there is a Federal Law to prevent it and it's vigorously maintained by the Feds then it will continue to be a problem. States have a right to pass laws that make them safe. Other states do not have the right to allow people to circumvent those laws.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I admittedly lack sufficient knowledge about guns and gun ammunition to make any declarative statements but thinking about it I don't know if limiting the amount of bullets someone has available to them is going to make as much of an impact as limiting the power of the gun shooting the bullet. If we were to regulate the power of the guns that are available for purchase it could help reduce the amount of powerful guns being bought by people intent on doing harm with them one day but at the same time it wouldn't really do anything about removing existing guns already in the hands of people with potential intent to do harm. A good hearted person with a powerful weapon in their home who has no intent of doing bad things is not dangerous, but the person who has turned from God that has that same weapon probably could be or will be dangerous. Same gun but different potential outcome. I don't think there is a good answer. You would think there is a happy middle somewhere between total gun confiscation and total gun freedom.

There is but we have two diametrically apposed forces that want it just their way and will fight almost to the death to get their way. Meanwhile, the rest of us are caught up in it.

 

[WinterBorn]

I admittedly lack sufficient knowledge about guns and gun ammunition to make any declarative statements but thinking about it I don't know if limiting the amount of bullets someone has available to them is going to make as much of an impact as limiting the power of the gun shooting the bullet. If we were to regulate the power of the guns that are available for purchase it could help reduce the amount of powerful guns being bought by people intent on doing harm with them one day but at the same time it wouldn't really do anything about removing existing guns already in the hands of people with potential intent to do harm. A good hearted person with a powerful weapon in their home who has no intent of doing bad things is not dangerous, but the person who has turned from God that has that same weapon probably could be or will be dangerous. Same gun but different potential outcome. I don't think there is a good answer. You would think there is a happy middle somewhere between total gun confiscation and total gun freedom.

The power of the guns is not a simple matter. The rifle that was used at the club in Dayton was a relatively low powered rifle. When compared to most hunting rifles, it was less powerful. In fact, the .223 cartridge it fires is illegal to use to hunt deer in many states.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I admittedly lack sufficient knowledge about guns and gun ammunition to make any declarative statements but thinking about it I don't know if limiting the amount of bullets someone has available to them is going to make as much of an impact as limiting the power of the gun shooting the bullet. If we were to regulate the power of the guns that are available for purchase it could help reduce the amount of powerful guns being bought by people intent on doing harm with them one day but at the same time it wouldn't really do anything about removing existing guns already in the hands of people with potential intent to do harm. A good hearted person with a powerful weapon in their home who has no intent of doing bad things is not dangerous, but the person who has turned from God that has that same weapon probably could be or will be dangerous. Same gun but different potential outcome. I don't think there is a good answer. You would think there is a happy middle somewhere between total gun confiscation and total gun freedom.

The power of the guns is not a simple matter. The rifle that was used at the club in Dayton was a relatively low powered rifle. When compared to most hunting rifles, it was less powerful. In fact, the .223 cartridge it fires is illegal to use to hunt deer in many states.

And where did you hear that? As far as I know, he used an AR or a clone with 223 ammo. And that's just 300 fpm off the Nato Round which cannot be fired in MOST Civilian ARs and AR Clones even if it's claimed on the stupid sales advertisement. And that 223 is horse enough to get the job done. Most mass shootings are using the 223, not the Nato 556.

 

[farmer]

Because someday THIRTEEN shitlords might decide to smash their way into my house, that's why.

'I Could Die': Suspects Trash House During Md. Home Invasion

Two new future law abiding gun owners the left will hate

Loud crash at 3 am probably means the cows broke a gate. If I was stupid enough to live somewhere that I had to worry about people breaking into my house I would grab my shotgun. Middle of the night I want something that covers the widest area per shot, three feet per shot not a quarter of an inch.