Why this Republican is for stricter Gun Control

[KSB2424 3,148]

How the Gabby Gifford shooter was stopped:

 

Loughner allegedly proceeded to fire apparently randomly at other members of the crowd. He reportedly used a 9mm Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol with a 33-round magazine. Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it. Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the 14th injury. The gunman was tackled to the ground by 74-year-old retired US Army Colonel Bill Badger,who had been shot himself, and was further subdued by Maisch and bystanders Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio.

 

We are never going to curb crazy people doing crazy things, the point of gun control should be to try and limit the severity and frequency of damage crazy people and criminals can accomplish all while balancing it with the rights of everyday Americans who want a firearm(s) to defend themselves (and family or community) or even hunting/recreation. That's the balance we are looking for.

 

The only reason Loughner did not kill or injure more people is that he had to STOP and RELOAD. That gives innocent people time to react. Wether that be run, attack the assailent or even use their own legal firearm against the crazy guy/criminal.

 

Therefore limiting weapons that have high capacity magazines, and those weapons that can do severe damage the fastest is okay by me. They are not needed (I said needed, not wanted) by ordinatry citizenry in defending one's home, hunting, gamesmenship or even arming everybody (militia). That can be done with standard issue handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns.

 

This isn't about taking away your second amendment right. That will never fly in this country by the Supreme Court. This is about simply limiting that right using rational thought and common sense. Much like we limit the 1rst amendment by outlawing yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theatre or the "Time, Place, and Manner" provision of the 1rst amendment. i.e. you can't hold up porn pictures infront of a elementary school and claim that's your right to free speech. We have common sense limitations, and gun control in the 21rst century considering the arms we have today versus the 1700's makes perfect sense. Even for this progressive movement hatin' boy from the south.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

How arrogant of you to claim to know how many bullets it would take to defend one's family from intruders.

[gocolts 300]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sEYGcXSmpQ

 

/thread

[cbfalcon 825]

The only reason Loughner did not kill or injure more people is that he had to STOP and RELOAD. That gives innocent people time to react. Wether that be run, attack the assailent or even use their own legal firearm against the crazy guy/criminal.

 

Therefore limiting weapons that have high capacity magazines, and those weapons that can do severe damage the fastest is okay by me. They are not needed (I said needed, not wanted) by ordinatry citizenry in defending one's home, hunting, gamesmenship or even arming everybody (militia). That can be done with standard issue handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns.

 

 

You make sense on this one KSB.

[gocolts 300]

 

You make sense on this one KSB.

Too bad my video DESTROYED everything he said.

[posty 2,702]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sEYGcXSmpQ

 

/thread

 

[parrot 789]

Too bad my video DESTROYED everything he said.

 

How so? Simply because she says it doesn't matter how many bullets a magazine holds with a lot of conviction, that doesn't make it true. Obviously, in the Loughner case, it did matter.

[Franknbeans 46]

How arrogant of you to claim to know how many bullets it would take to defend one's family from intruders.

where did he do that?

[hoytdwow 202]

I note that the 2nd amendment calls for a well-regulated militia.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

where did he do that?

Where he said high capacity magazines should be banned.

 

Hth

[cbfalcon 825]

How arrogant of you to claim to know how many bullets it would take to defend one's family from intruders.

 

I think it's arrogant that so many on the far Right claim to know that I don't need an atom bomb to defend my family from intruders.

[NorthernVike 2,087]

pocolts won this thread.

[cbfalcon 825]

pocolts won this thread.

 

I know what those words mean, but that sentence doesn't make any sense.

[Bruce Benedict 0]

WE HAVE PROVEN THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU HAVE HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES WITH YOUTUBE VIDEOS, SO SUCK IT!

 

ALSO, WE NEED HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES TO DEFEND OURSELVES, SINCE NOTHING LESS WILL DO!!!

 

ALSO, WE REALLY, REALLY HATE LOGIC!!!

[BudBro 183]

I note that the 2nd amendment calls for a well-regulated militia.

each state should regulate one of those. attendance monthly for 6 months should be required at your own cost, like the new healthcare. penalties if you don't participate, just like healthcare. then, everyone would know how a gun works. takes the scary out.

[KSB2424 3,148]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sEYGcXSmpQ

 

/thread

Let me ask a question to you. Which person would more than likely be able to 'reload' a normal handgun / shotgun / rifle the fastest witout a problem or issue?

 

A. Respectable gun owner - law enforcement

B. Thug criminal

C. Crazy with probable specturm disorder young white adult who stole a gun from daddy or mommies safe

 

I would answer that question with option A. Which is giving the good guys the advantage. High capacity semi auto weapons negate that advatage and give it back to crazy people / thug criminals.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I think it's arrogant that so many on the far Right claim to know that I don't need an atom bomb to defend my family from intruders.

Poor effort.

 

1/10

[cbfalcon 825]

Poor effort.

 

1/10

 

It was a solid effort. The government has already determined what you need to defend your family from intruders. All we are debating now is whether the line is perfectly placed, needs to move to the right, or needs to move to the left.

 

Grow and opinion of your own. It's fun.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

It was a solid effort.

Keep telling yourself that, Poncho.

[cbfalcon 825]

Poncho.

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Let me ask a question to you. Which person would more than likely be able to 'reload' a normal handgun / shotgun / rifle the fastest witout a problem or issue?

 

 

How many rounds would you allow a stay at home mom up against three thugs who just entered her house?

[cbfalcon 825]

How many rounds would you allow a stay at home mom up against three thugs who just entered her house?

 

Or better yet, how many rounds would YOU allow a stay at home mom up against ninety three thugs who just entered her house?

[KSB2424 3,148]

How many rounds would you allow a stay at home mom up against three thugs who just entered her house?

We can sit here all day and make up scenarios. This is a balancing act between gun ownership and common sense gun control. There will always be crime and crazy people.

 

But in your scenario, I'll play along for some reason. I hope mom does have access to a gun (of which more than likely can unload more than six bullets before reloading). And since she is a responsible gun owner she can reload qucikly and efficentley. Probably much faster than a thug off the street or a 20 year old degraged lunatic who stole a gun from daddy. Now of course if the thugs have semi auto guns then she has less of a chance.

[Bruce Benedict 0]

It doesn't matter how many rounds the stay at home mom has in her magazine, because she can just keep switching out magazines at lightning speed. So sayeth weapons expert Dr. Suzanna Hupp of Youtube, the Internet.

 

But Thomas Jefferson would have wanted that armed intruder to have as many rounds as he damn well pleased, in case the gubbmint became tyrannical between the time he legally purchased his Bushmaster and the time he chose to use it to slay a mom and her children.

[cbfalcon 825]

Man, can you imagine if the stay at home mom was up against 9 military thugs who just entered her house by driving a tank through the wall?

 

RP doesn't want her to be able to defend herself though. He wants her stuck with a little tiny semi-automatic rifle. Poor stay at home mom.

[BudBro 183]

Or better yet, how many rounds would YOU allow a stay at home mom up against ninety three thugs who just entered her house?

that doesn't make any sense. 10 rounds only leaves 3 each if there were 3 intruders, with a spare. under pressure and only 3 rounds each doesn't leave your wife much of a chance to defend herself. maybe she's well practiced in changing out magazines under pressure, like that guy in the op. if she drops it, now one is hurt and the other 2 are pisssed. that should work out well for her.

[BudBro 183]

It doesn't matter how many rounds the stay at home mom has in her magazine, because she can just keep switching out magazines at lightning speed. So sayeth weapons expert Dr. Suzanna Hupp of Youtube, the Internet.

 

But Thomas Jefferson would have wanted that armed intruder to have as many rounds as he damn well pleased, in case the gubbmint became tyrannical between the time he legally purchased his Bushmaster and the time he chose to use it to slay a mom and her children.

all of this is intellectually dishonest. you know the intent of the 2nd amendment. defend it for what it is.

[5-Points 3,536]

This isn't about taking away your second amendment right. That will never fly in this country by the Supreme Court. This is about simply limiting that right using rational thought and common sense. Much like we limit the 1rst amendment by outlawing yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theatre or the "Time, Place, and Manner" provision of the 1rst amendment.

We have similar common sense gun laws that make it illegal to fire a gun into the air in celebration or fire within a certain proximity to roads. Laws like those actually do make society safer as people don't have to worry about bullets falling out of the sky. "Assault weapon" bans have been proven to have almost zero impact on violent crime. A hi-cap magazine ban will also have zero impact on violent crime as the bad guys will just make their own. Some sheet metal and some springs and I can crank out all the magazines I want. So if you want to make society safer, I think you're barking up the wrong tree in regards to gun control.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

We can

 

But in your scenario, I'll play along for some reason. I hope mom does have access to a gun (of which more than likely can unload more than six bullets before reloading). And since she is a responsible gun owner she can reload qucikly and efficentley. Probably much faster than a thug off the street or a 20 year old degraged lunatic who stole a gun from daddy. Now of course if the thugs have semi auto guns then she has less of a chance.

So your rationale for limiting magazine capacity is because the thug can be taken out while changing them out. But you would limit a woman facing three thugs to 6 shots before she has to

reload.

 

And you rationalize this insane position by saying she would do just fine because she is "a responsible gun owner".

 

Wow.

[rholio 339]

Listening to republicans talk about gun control is like listening to democrats talk about abortion.

 

"No limits!" "No limits!" "No limits!"

 

Keep up the good work, dumb@sses.

[gocolts 300]

Let me ask a question to you. Which person would more than likely be able to 'reload' a normal handgun / shotgun / rifle the fastest witout a problem or issue?

 

A. Respectable gun owner - law enforcement

B. Thug criminal

C. Crazy with probable specturm disorder young white adult who stole a gun from daddy or mommies safe

 

I would answer that question with option A. Which is giving the good guys the advantage. High capacity semi auto weapons negate that advatage and give it back to crazy people / thug criminals.

Answer: Anybody with a few hours of practice.

 

Let me ask you a question. If criminals already ignore murder and rape laws, what in the focking hell makes you think they will follow these new laws about how many rounds you can have in your gun???

[jerryskids 6,800]

Man, can you imagine if the stay at home mom was up against 9 military thugs who just entered her house by driving a tank through the wall?

 

RP doesn't want her to be able to defend herself though. He wants her stuck with a little tiny semi-automatic rifle. Poor stay at home mom.

 

What I find humorous is that RP presented a very realistic scenario, you and KSB are using a one-off example of a whackjob who shot a congresswoman, and you think that RP's example is extreme.

[cbfalcon 825]

What I find humorous is that RP presented a very realistic scenario, you and KSB are using a one-off example of a whackjob who shot a congresswoman, and you think that RP's example is extreme.

 

I don't think RP's example is extreme at all. 3 thugs is very realistic. How about 4? What about 6? How about 8? What if those 8 have their own high capacity semi automatic weapons? And what if they have on Kevlar vests?

 

Tell me the exact line as to what we think is worthy of a stay at home mom being protected against. Then lets have an honest discussion as to what she will need for that protection.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Man, can you imagine if the stay at home mom was up against 9 military thugs who just entered her house by driving a tank through the wall?

 

RP doesn't want her to be able to defend herself though. He wants her stuck with a little tiny semi-automatic rifle. Poor stay at home mom.

 

Wow fella. Ever since you tried to tangle with me in that last thread and got curbstomped you have really gone off the deep end.

[jerryskids 6,800]

I don't think RP's example is extreme at all. 3 thugs is very realistic. How about 4? What about 6? How about 8? What if those 8 have their own high capacity semi automatic weapons? And what if they have on Kevlar vests?

 

Tell me the exact line as to what we think is worthy of a stay at home mom being protected against. Then lets have an honest discussion as to what she will need for that protection.

I guess I don't know where you are going with this.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I guess I don't know where you are going with this.

Neither does he, but it's never slowed him down before.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

That's funny. This Democrat is not in favor of stricter gun control.

 

My, my, how the tables have turned.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

That's funny. This Democrat is not in favor of stricter gun control.

 

My, my, how the tables have turned.

Even a blind squirrel...........

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Even a blind squirrel...........

 

...needs a high-capacity magazine to defend against nest invaders?

[cbfalcon 825]

I guess I don't know where you are going with this.

 

Let's take it slow then.

 

We all agree a stay at home mother should have the right to carry enough firepower to adequately defend herself against a single home invader. And we will go ahead and say she should also be able to defend herself against 3 people invading her home simultaneously.

 

For the sake of this discussion, where would you like to draw the line? Give me the number of well armed organized attackers RP's stay at home mom needs to be able to defend herself against.