daveincincy
15 years ago

:-k true.... but you can hit 30 people with one bat....

DrafterX wrote:



And get 30 homeruns...if it's corked. :-"
richokeeffe
15 years ago
I did have this conversation with a friend of mine that is an avid hunter and gun owner. For the record, I am mixed about guns and gun control.

I asked if there was really any need to have high capacity magazines, assault weapons, or semi-automatic firing mechanisms for a gun owner. Not is it fun, or is there a right or any of that. He replied "Of course not, but that misses the point" I asked what the point is.

"Because the folks who want to restrict gun rights won't stop there. It will be be just a fight at the next thing anyways. They have no intention of stopping at that, so I want to fight there."

I can't say that I disagree. Once one starts ceding rights, the slope just gets steeper and slipperier.

As an example, look at what has happened around smoking. same sort of thing - passionate anti smoking advocates have gotten it to where legislation has actually been filed (and died in committee thankfully) to ban smoking in your own car. Hidden under the "second hand smoke" and "we're only protecting the children" moral high grounds, of course.

I don't own any guns, and don;t really want to, but I certainly want to have the right to if I feel I need or want one.
DrafterX
15 years ago
🤔 which brings up another good question.... why does a civilian need a baseball bat if he doesn't play baseball..??
Nicar
15 years ago
Now Drafter... you're getting too deep on us...slow down...
DrafterX
15 years ago
HockeyDad
15 years ago
Why is MACS avoiding this question?
borndead1
15 years ago

why does a civilian need a hand gun that holds over 30 bullets?

RICKAMAVEN wrote:




If high round magazines/clips were made illegal, do you think criminals would obey this law?

Just where do you draw the line at how much control government can exert over our lives, Rick? I'm asking you to really think about that.

Whenever I discuss gun rights with anyone, I always end up repeating the old line: "It's not about guns, it's about freedom."

RICKAMAVEN
15 years ago
I PINGED MAC BECAUSE HE IS A POLICE OFFICER AND POLICIE OFFICERS DO NOT CARRY A CLIP THAT HOLDS THAT MUCH AND HE IS THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE, NOT YOU DING BATS THAT CARRY A GUN TO VISIT A NEIGHBOR OR PICK UP A GALLON OF MILK, AND BECAUSE I RESPECT HIS
OPINION IN THIS REGARD..

I WOULD NEVER ASK HIM ABOUT POKER.
Nicar
15 years ago
First line of defense?

He is in a highly needed, dangerous, needed position... and when someone is breaking into your house, you tell me who the first line of defense is?



](*,) 😣 😣 😣 😣 😣 😣



Also, why not PING BUSA too?
apachelm
15 years ago
Shawn were you hired onto a police force? If so congrats! If not you still have a tough job that I wouldn't want to do.
RICKAMAVEN
15 years ago
INCIDENTALLY IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WANTS YOUR GUN, THEY WILL TAKE IT OR KILL YOU IF THEY WANT IT BAD ENOUGH.

THEY HAVE BIGGER GUNS, MORE OF THEM AND THEY EVEN HAVE THEIR OWN AIR FORCE, SO YOUR DREAMS OF FANTASY ABOUT.YOUR 30 SHOT GLOCK PROTECTING YOU FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IS A WASTE OF A GOOD DREAM. DREAM ABOUT GORGEOUS WOMEN WITH POINTED BREASTS, KNOCKING AT YOUR DOOR FOR YOUR ATTENTION.

SOME LITTLE OLD LADY KNOCKED THE SPARE CLIP HE WAS TRYING TO RELOAD WITH, OUT OF HIS HANDS. SHE DIDN'T EVEN NEED A NAIL CLIPPER.
VaMtnMan
15 years ago

"New York Rep. Peter King, chairman of House Homeland Security Committee, will introduce a bill to ban carrying a gun within 1,000 feet of a member of Congress and federal judges. The measure will also apply to carrying weapons near the president or vice president.

King announced the measure at a press conference today with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who heads a gun control group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns and who is backing the bill. King's move may indicate there may be gaining momentum for some sort of gun-control measures in the wake of the Tucson shooting.

King's spokesman was unable to immediately say whether the congressman, who has been generally supportive of gun control measures, would back a separate bill being pushed by New York Democrat Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and New Jersey Democrat Sen. Frank Lautenberg to ban the kind of high capacity magazines that alleged Tucson shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, used during Saturday's attack."





Soon only the shooter with have a gun within 1000 feet of a politician! (I'm speculating that the shooter will break this proposed law)




HockeyDad wrote:





I think this would be a Great Law. And of course since "No One" will have a gun within 1,000 feet of a Politician, the President and Vice President, they won't have any need for "Armed" security.
Hey if there is a law against it, we know no one would want to break it. Right?
VaMtnMan
15 years ago
Wow, so why outlaw the 30 round clips, just make sure there a bunch of Old Ladies around when you need them.
apachelm
15 years ago

INCIDENTALLY IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WANTS YOUR GUN, THEY WILL TAKE IT OR KILL YOU IF THEY WANT IT BAD ENOUGH.

You are making the case for NO gun control laws right there


THEY HAVE BIGGER GUNS, MORE OF THEM AND THEY EVEN HAVE THEIR OWN AIR FORCE, SO YOUR DREAMS OF FANTASY ABOUT.YOUR 30 SHOT GLOCK PROTECTING YOU FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IS A WASTE OF A GOOD DREAM. DREAM ABOUT GORGEOUS WOMEN WITH POINTED BREASTS, KNOCKING AT YOUR DOOR FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
I was talking about ANY gun restrictions NOT just high capacity clips. Also there is a scale of numbers that would help keep the gov't in check. If it was so easy for them w/their Air Force and bigger guns why are they have so much trouble in Afganistan?


SOME LITTLE OLD LADY KNOCKED THE SPARE CLIP HE WAS TRYING TO RELOAD WITH, OUT OF HIS HANDS. SHE DIDN'T EVEN NEED A NAIL CLIPPER.

RICKAMAVEN wrote:


Nicar
15 years ago
why does he persist in typing red, caps..the largest size..what about the little letters??????




whatafuqinmoronheisnowandforeverandcomplainingabout30shotwhenfirstcomplainaboutmorethan30shotflipflopper
HockeyDad
15 years ago
The attacker was actually stopped by one woman and three men while he was trying to reload.

The argument could be made that were there just one armed citizen in the crowd, there would be a lot less victims.

Pro-Gun control arguments are always based on the assumption the lawbreakers will start obeying the laws.
DadZilla3
15 years ago

why does a civilian need a hand gun that holds over 30 bullets?

RICKAMAVEN wrote:



Because it's so damn awkward to get in and out of your car with an M134.
wtjvj
15 years ago

Why do politicians lie?
tonyt722
15 years ago

INCIDENTALLY IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WANTS YOUR GUN, THEY WILL TAKE IT OR KILL YOU IF THEY WANT IT BAD ENOUGH.

THEY HAVE BIGGER GUNS, MORE OF THEM AND THEY EVEN HAVE THEIR OWN AIR FORCE, SO YOUR DREAMS OF FANTASY ABOUT.YOUR 30 SHOT GLOCK PROTECTING YOU FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IS A WASTE OF A GOOD DREAM. DREAM ABOUT GORGEOUS WOMEN WITH POINTED BREASTS, KNOCKING AT YOUR DOOR FOR YOUR ATTENTION.

SOME LITTLE OLD LADY KNOCKED THE SPARE CLIP HE WAS TRYING TO RELOAD WITH, OUT OF HIS HANDS. SHE DIDN'T EVEN NEED A NAIL CLIPPER.

RICKAMAVEN wrote:


Even have their own Air Force huh? No s h i t...I must have been living in bubble or something the past 30 years.
tonyt722
15 years ago

Why is MACS avoiding this question?

HockeyDad wrote:


MACS finally got his G37....you really think he is gonna spend his spare time with us and not in that car?
Users browsing this topic