^How about our nation's obsession with swimingpools? 300 children a year drown in our pools, but I guess those deaths are an acceptable cost for our recreation. I wonder how many of these "if it saves one child" gun grabbers own swimming pools without any thought to the tragic deaths they cause?

dpnewell wrote:

What's a 30 round clip? The only clips I have hold 8.

edin508 wrote:

Last night on Klondike Men, one of the guys took out a female grizzly that was raiding their fish stock with an AR. Sure wouldn't want to have to go up against a grizzly with a 10 round limit.

Nor would I want to confront a group of home invaders with only 10 rounds, but that’s all the government says I need. I guess I can find comfort in the fact that home invaders and other criminals will be obeying the law, and not using high cap mags against me and mine.

dpnewell wrote:

TV discussion/debate I watched a week or two back:

Counter argument:How do we find out they are mentally ill enough to massacre until after they do so?

Another is: It's not the pseudoephedrine that makes the methamphetamine, its the drug addict/dealer who obtains it and makes the meth. Taking volumes of pseudophed out of peoples' hands by reducing and controlling supply, reduces the opportunity to make meth.

Thus, guns in and of themselves aren't the problem. It is what a few do with them that is, but perhaps changing part of the supply line could change the ability for some of those "few".

Won't change any one's mind, but certainly made me think for a while.

rfenst wrote:

The likelihood of you encountering either a grizzly bear or home invaders is about 1/1000000000 of the odds you or yours will be injured by your own gun.

pdxstogieman wrote:

The likelihood of you encountering either a grizzly bear or home invaders is about 1/1000000000 of the odds you or yours will be injured by your own gun.

pdxstogieman wrote:

Easy. I have a swimming pool.
And the only tragic death it has caused is fifths of fine Tequila and a few noteable Cubans. While tragic, their deaths were not in vein.

Brewha wrote:

Oh, and if a gun was originally designed to take a 30 round feeding device, then a 30 round magazine is a STANDARD capacity magazine, not a high capacity one. High capacity would be a magazine larger then original specs. But calling them high capacity makes them sound somehow evil and modified, so the propagandists use that to their advantage.

dpnewell wrote:

I'm very glad to hear that your swimming pool hasn't killed.... yet. But statistics show that it may very well kill an innocent child in the future. If you really care about our children, you would fill in your pool and demand that Washington outlaw private ownership. Pools are too dangerous to be in private hands, and there is nothing in our Constitution that guarantees your right to own one. If it only saves one child, wouldn't it be worth giving up your selfish convenience?

dpnewell wrote:

Who are these most people?

CelticBomber wrote:

Insights about particular terminology being used incorrectly in the discourse are wrong. Gun-related nomenclature is nowhere near a real real issue and to claim otherwise is dismissive- at best. People who don't know the proper name of a part and who have even never seen a real gun can think and reason the exact same way others can.

rfenst wrote:

I'm very glad to hear that your swimming pool hasn't killed.... yet. But statistics show that it may very well kill an innocent child in the future. If you really care about our children, you would fill in your pool and demand that Washington outlaw private ownership. Pools are too dangerous to be in private hands, and there is nothing in our Constitution that guarantees your right to own one. If it only saves one child, wouldn't it be worth giving up your selfish convenience?

dpnewell wrote:

It supprise me that this sort of rickety reasoning passes for 'logic'.
But, I'm sure that somewhere Melvin and Burt are crushing there beer cans while saying;
"You tell 'em DP! Kick 'da libberbulls azz 'fore he take away all our guns, knives an forkes!"

Brewha wrote:

Come on Brewha, you're smarter then this. Do I have to spell it out for you? It was a sarcastic absurdity, to point out other absurdities, that for some reason you tend to grasp as "logic".

Restricting a Constitutional right to the law abiding, in the hope that it will stop criminals (those who do not obey laws), from committing criminal acts. How can anyone consider that to be the least bit rational?

Yet I hear all the time “if it only saves one child”. OK, bud, if the gun grabbers are so concerned with saving life, then maybe they should look at the conveniences they enjoy that kill children every year. They sure don’t seem to have any problem sacrificing lives for the sake of their recreation and convenience. Total hypocrisy, but I’m sure you can’t even see it.

dpnewell wrote:

Much more ignorant than taking away innocent law BIDING citizens rights because of criminals.......right?

At least were protecting viginas from the bible thumpers.

ZRX1200 wrote:

So again I ask you, what is the benefit to these weapons?

Brewha wrote:

Where does the second amendment say anything about the right to hunt critters..?? 😕

DrafterX wrote:

Hunting, target shooting, formation of militias in defense of the nation.

HockeyDad wrote: