The next Mass murder. guessing game.

[Wonky3]

I'd be happy with you using a quill, inkwell and parchment to convey your message too, because that's what they had when the 1st was written. The whole musket argument is ludicrous.

Not so much. 
When I was in the military I carried a M2 Carbine. It was not noted for it's knock down ability, or it's range, or many of the other factors that military rifles provided. What it did provide was FIREPOWER. With a "banana clip" I could turn the thing sideways and reign a hail of bullets that would keep heads down in front of me. 

Trooper weapons evolve. I have no idea what they are using now, but the analogy of the quill, inkwell and parchment seems valid to me. If I were armed with a M2 Carbine against a group using muskets, there would be a lot of dead musket shooters on the ground. 

Now, Imagine that a trooper is armed with a small drone and a control that will allow him to "see" his objective and release his "firepower". Yes, this stuff will get more and more lethal. And civilians in our population will get their hands on it. And the NRA will defend them. 

[tvguy]

They raised the death count from 20 to 50. It a massacre by all accounts.

"Guns don't kill people..."

But people with guns kill people and it seems to be the preferred weapon of choice. This nut could have done the job with a bomb. He didn't. It appears that nut-jobs think of guns as their weapons of choice. I'm not in favor of "gun control" but wonder if there is some kind of restriction to keep this kind of thing from happening. Maybe not. But something has changed: 50 years ago guns were common and found in many households. It's tempting to suggest that more than a "gun problem" we have a societal problem. 

Now what?

It's tempting to suggest that more than a "gun problem" we have a societal problem.

Suggest  ? Of course it's more than a gun problem. I'm positive it is indeed a societal problem a tiny fraction of our society.

[tvguy]

The right to bear arms was written into the constitution when guns were black powder muskets. I totally support people being able to own as many of those kind of guns as they may want. 

Who knows what the future will bring? The ray guns of science fiction may become a reality. Would you gun rights folks support anyone being able to own a combination laser/sonic disrupter gun able to kill a room full of people with one pull of a trigger?

Cletus It's already basically illegal to have an AUTOMATIC weapon. So that fact pretty much screws up your notion that futuristic ray guns will EVER be allowed because of thew second amendment.

The right to bear arms was written into the constitution when guns were black powder muskets. I totally support people being able to own as many of those kind of guns as they may want.

I think you are being facetious but seriously what do you think the intent of the second amendment was all about?

It was about the right to bear arms. Not inefficient outdated arms but arms that could would be used for  protection against a tyrannical government.

And it also state the PEOPLE have that right as well as MILITIA. I'm positive they never intended for people to never have better weapons.

[chuck white]

The right to bear arms was written into the constitution when guns were black powder muskets. I totally support people being able to own as many of those kind of guns as they may want. 

Who knows what the future will bring? The ray guns of science fiction may become a reality. Would you gun rights folks support anyone being able to own a combination laser/sonic disrupter gun able to kill a room full of people with one pull of a trigger?

The right to bear arms came after the statement "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State". The people needed to be able to defend against that. So they included   " the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". As a check and balance. The constitution was about balance of power.

[tvguy]

The right to bear arms was written into the constitution when guns were black powder muskets. I totally support people being able to own as many of those kind of guns as they may want. 

Who knows what the future will bring? The ray guns of science fiction may become a reality. Would you gun rights folks support anyone being able to own a combination laser/sonic disrupter gun able to kill a room full of people with one pull of a trigger?

The right to bear arms came after the statement "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State". The people needed to be able to defend against that. So they included   " the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". As a check and balance. The constitution was about balance of power.

I think IF one wants to consider the intent of the second amendment? Then we have to realize that having a firearm in those days was a necessity to live.
And IMO that exactly why it was first stated about a militia, then a comma and then it went on to say the PEOPLE have the right to bear arms.

[cletus1]

The right to bear arms was written into the constitution when guns were black powder muskets. I totally support people being able to own as many of those kind of guns as they may want. 

Who knows what the future will bring? The ray guns of science fiction may become a reality. Would you gun rights folks support anyone being able to own a combination laser/sonic disrupter gun able to kill a room full of people with one pull of a trigger?

Cletus It's already basically illegal to have an AUTOMATIC weapon. So that fact pretty much screws up your notion that futuristic ray guns will EVER be allowed because of thew second amendment.

The right to bear arms was written into the constitution when guns were black powder muskets. I totally support people being able to own as many of those kind of guns as they may want.

I think you are being facetious but seriously what do you think the intent of the second amendment was all about?

It was about the right to bear arms. Not inefficient outdated arms but arms that could would be used for  protection against a tyrannical government.

And it also state the PEOPLE have that right as well as MILITIA. I'm positive they never intended for people to never have better weapons.

I was only joking about the muskets. My point is that some regulation exists and will exist in the future. So why is keeping people who are on the no fly list from obtaining guns such a big deal? Why is the NRA is against it? And why is banning 30 round clips a big deal?

[cletus1]

I'd be happy with you using a quill, inkwell and parchment to convey your message too, because that's what they had when the 1st was written. The whole musket argument is ludicrous.

I have come to the conclusion that you can't see far beyond the literal meaning of words. Muskets is an example of old technology and nothing more. It isn't about quills or ink wells it's about the advancement of technology relative to killing machines and how to deal with that advancement. I'm not sure the framers of the constitution did not want us to have machine guns or bazokas. Even though they did not exist then. Did the framers want us to be able to possess the weapons of the day? You seem convinced they did and the Second Amendment allows you to possess assault rifles? Maybe, but I doubt it.

[chuck white]

I'd be happy with you using a quill, inkwell and parchment to convey your message too, because that's what they had when the 1st was written. The whole musket argument is ludicrous.

I have come to the conclusion that you can't see far beyond the literal meaning of words. Muskets were an example old technology and nothing more. It isn't about quills or ink wells it's about the advancement of technology relative to killing machines and how to deal with that advancement. I'm not sure the framers of the constitution did not want us to have machine guns or bazokas. Even though they did not exist then. Did the framers want us to be able to possess the weapons of the day. You seem convinced the Second Amendment allows you to possess assaul rifles?

shall not be infringed.


WMD should be included too.

[cletus1]

http://www.thoughtsandprayersthegame.com

[Hugo]

ASSAULT is a VERB.  An ACTION.  There is no such thing as an "assault rifle".  A gun, ANY gun, is a tool.  The hand that wields it can be benevolent, or evil, but the ASSAULT is an ACTION taken by the PERSON.

It's an easy concept, to me.

[cletus1]

ASSAULT is a VERB.  An ACTION.  There is no such thing as an "assault rifle".  A gun, ANY gun, is a tool.  The hand that wields it can be benevolent, or evil, but the ASSAULT is an ACTION taken by the PERSON.

It's an easy concept, to me.

Forget grammar for a minute. You always seem to return to word juggling when the term assault rifle is mentioned. Who cares what people call these rifles? Let's call them weapon A2. Weapon A2 is a military style firearm like the AK47, AR15, HK93 and similar guns. And yes, any gun is a tool, but since you can't possibly control what people do with them, you might make them a little harder to get for people that should not have access to them. 

It's an easy concept to me.

[chuck white]

ASSAULT is a VERB.  An ACTION.  There is no such thing as an "assault rifle".  A gun, ANY gun, is a tool.  The hand that wields it can be benevolent, or evil, but the ASSAULT is an ACTION taken by the PERSON.

It's an easy concept, to me.

Forget grammar for a minute. You always seem to return to word juggling when the term assault rifle is mentioned. Who cares what people call these rifles? Let's call them weapon A2. Weapon A2 is a military style firearm like the AK 47, AR15, HK 93 and similar guns. And yes any gun is a tool, but since you can't possibly control what people do with them, you might make them a little harder to get for people that should not have access to them. 

It's an easy concept to me.

Just buy a car and get a free AR-15, How much harder can it be.

http://jalopnik.com/car-dealer-offers-fr...1782192773

[Wonky3]

ASSAULT is a VERB.  An ACTION.  There is no such thing as an "assault rifle".  A gun, ANY gun, is a tool.  The hand that wields it can be benevolent, or evil, but the ASSAULT is an ACTION taken by the PERSON.

It's an easy concept, to me.

Forget grammar for a minute. You always seem to return to word juggling when the term assault rifle is mentioned. Who cares what people call these rifles? Let's call them weapon A2. Weapon A2 is a military style firearm like the AK47, AR15, HK93 and similar guns. And yes, any gun is a tool, but since you can't possibly control what people do with them, you might make them a little harder to get for people that should not have access to them. 

It's an easy concept to me.

Of course. "Rounds per minute" may not be important in bringing down a Buck, but if your goal is to kill a bunch of people in a crowded place you want FIREPOWER. Assault that verb.

[Hugo]

ASSAULT is a VERB.  An ACTION.  There is no such thing as an "assault rifle".  A gun, ANY gun, is a tool.  The hand that wields it can be benevolent, or evil, but the ASSAULT is an ACTION taken by the PERSON.

It's an easy concept, to me.

Forget grammar for a minute. You always seem to return to word juggling when the term assault rifle is mentioned. Who cares what people call these rifles? Let's call them weapon A2. Weapon A2 is a military style firearm like the AK47, AR15, HK93 and similar guns. And yes, any gun is a tool, but since you can't possibly control what people do with them, you might make them a little harder to get for people that should not have access to them. 

It's an easy concept to me.

Of course. "Rounds per minute" may not be important in bringing down a Buck, but if your goal is to kill a bunch of people in a crowded place you want FIREPOWER. Assault that verb.

EVERY SINGLE SEMI AUTO WEAPON FIRES AT THE SAME "ROUNDS PER MINUTE".  How fast you pull the trigger.  So is it your argument to ban ALL SEMI automatic weapons?

Also, I will repeat what I asked Cletus.  My 30-06 has twice the "power" of a .223 AR-15 or equivalent.  My 7mm has even MORE "power" that the 30-06.  Neither are considered "assault" because the have a wood stock and aren't "black and scary"?

Maybe you should stick to criticizing thing you have actual knowledge about, like obscure books.

[tvguy]

The right to bear arms was written into the constitution when guns were black powder muskets. I totally support people being able to own as many of those kind of guns as they may want. 

Who knows what the future will bring? The ray guns of science fiction may become a reality. Would you gun rights folks support anyone being able to own a combination laser/sonic disrupter gun able to kill a room full of people with one pull of a trigger?

Cletus It's already basically illegal to have an AUTOMATIC weapon. So that fact pretty much screws up your notion that futuristic ray guns will EVER be allowed because of thew second amendment.

The right to bear arms was written into the constitution when guns were black powder muskets. I totally support people being able to own as many of those kind of guns as they may want.

I think you are being facetious but seriously what do you think the intent of the second amendment was all about?

It was about the right to bear arms. Not inefficient outdated arms but arms that could would be used for  protection against a tyrannical government.

And it also state the PEOPLE have that right as well as MILITIA. I'm positive they never intended for people to never have better weapons.

I was only joking about the muskets. My point is that some regulation exists and will exist in the future. So why is keeping people who are on the no fly list from obtaining guns such a big deal? Why is the NRA is against it? And why is banning 30 round clips a big deal?

I don't know about the no fly list thing. But why is anyone against banning 30 round clips?


First of all a clip/magazine is SO simple I bet I could make one . There are tens of millions of them already out there. I doubt banning the sale of them would actually stop a mass shooter from finding them.


Buy more importantly unless you can deny that in part the second amendment was created to insure the people or militia had weapons  
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.
Some believe our right to own guns is in part to protect us from our own government. If that is true what sense does it make to restrict the amount of rounds that can be fired from a civilian gun when the government has no such restrictions?

Also lets say there is a massive natural disaster like Katrina. Why shouldn't I have the best protection I can get from roving bands of armed criminals? Who probably would have 30 round magazines.

[tvguy]

ASSAULT is a VERB.  An ACTION.  There is no such thing as an "assault rifle".  A gun, ANY gun, is a tool.  The hand that wields it can be benevolent, or evil, but the ASSAULT is an ACTION taken by the PERSON.

It's an easy concept, to me.

Forget grammar for a minute. You always seem to return to word juggling when the term assault rifle is mentioned. Who cares what people call these rifles? Let's call them weapon A2. Weapon A2 is a military style firearm like the AK47, AR15, HK93 and similar guns. And yes, any gun is a tool, but since you can't possibly control what people do with them, you might make them a little harder to get for people that should not have access to them. 

It's an easy concept to me.

Of course. "Rounds per minute" may not be important in bringing down a Buck, but if your goal is to kill a bunch of people in a crowded place you want FIREPOWER. Assault that verb.

EVERY SINGLE SEMI AUTO WEAPON FIRES AT THE SAME "ROUNDS PER MINUTE".  How fast you pull the trigger.  So is it your argument to ban ALL SEMI automatic weapons?

Also, I will repeat what I asked Cletus.  My 30-06 has twice the "power" of a .223 AR-15 or equivalent.  My 7mm has even MORE "power" that the 30-06.  Neither are considered "assault" because the have a wood stock and aren't "black and scary"?

Maybe you should stick to criticizing thing you have actual knowledge about, like obscure books.

 Lets be fair.....

   
HUNT is a VERB.  An ACTION.  There is no such thing as an "hunting rifle".  A gun, ANY gun, is a tool.  The hand that wields it can be benevolent, or evil, but to HUNT is an ACTION taken by the PERSON.

[GPnative]

ASSAULT is a VERB.  An ACTION.  There is no such thing as an "assault rifle".  A gun, ANY gun, is a tool.  The hand that wields it can be benevolent, or evil, but the ASSAULT is an ACTION taken by the PERSON.

It's an easy concept, to me.

Forget grammar for a minute. You always seem to return to word juggling when the term assault rifle is mentioned. Who cares what people call these rifles? Let's call them weapon A2. Weapon A2 is a military style firearm like the AK47, AR15, HK93 and similar guns. And yes, any gun is a tool, but since you can't possibly control what people do with them, you might make them a little harder to get for people that should not have access to them. 

It's an easy concept to me.

Of course. "Rounds per minute" may not be important in bringing down a Buck, but if your goal is to kill a bunch of people in a crowded place you want FIREPOWER. Assault that verb.

EVERY SINGLE SEMI AUTO WEAPON FIRES AT THE SAME "ROUNDS PER MINUTE".  How fast you pull the trigger.  So is it your argument to ban ALL SEMI automatic weapons?

Also, I will repeat what I asked Cletus.  My 30-06 has twice the "power" of a .223 AR-15 or equivalent.  My 7mm has even MORE "power" that the 30-06.  Neither are considered "assault" because the have a wood stock and aren't "black and scary"?

Maybe you should stick to criticizing thing you have actual knowledge about, like obscure books.

I think what people actually have a problem with is the quantity of rounds available to semi-auto fire, 30 round clips are bad but 5 rounds in a bolt action totally OK,  for now anyway....until even 5 rounds is too many and we find ourselves only able to own single shot bolt actions with "smart" technology that does not allow the weapon to be fired again until you file your taxes and pay your "right to fire" tax.

I don't feel this way by they way, just stating what I think the real issue people are having is without them even knowing it because the talk in the media/politicians is always the big bad scary looking war guns. Well, ok, so they ban AK's, a Ruger 10/22 with dual loading 25 rd. clip is not any less dangerous in the hands of a madman.

Just so my position is not confused, I do not want to ban high cap. mags, it's fun to shoot 25 rounds w/out reloading. Yes, I said FUN. Recreational shooting is FUN. No, I don't need a 25rd clip to hunt with, but I need one to blast the hell out of a long row of cans and targets.

[Wonky3]

ASSAULT is a VERB.  An ACTION.  There is no such thing as an "assault rifle".  A gun, ANY gun, is a tool.  The hand that wields it can be benevolent, or evil, but the ASSAULT is an ACTION taken by the PERSON.

It's an easy concept, to me.

Forget grammar for a minute. You always seem to return to word juggling when the term assault rifle is mentioned. Who cares what people call these rifles? Let's call them weapon A2. Weapon A2 is a military style firearm like the AK47, AR15, HK93 and similar guns. And yes, any gun is a tool, but since you can't possibly control what people do with them, you might make them a little harder to get for people that should not have access to them. 

It's an easy concept to me.

Of course. "Rounds per minute" may not be important in bringing down a Buck, but if your goal is to kill a bunch of people in a crowded place you want FIREPOWER. Assault that verb.

EVERY SINGLE SEMI AUTO WEAPON FIRES AT THE SAME "ROUNDS PER MINUTE".  How fast you pull the trigger.  So is it your argument to ban ALL SEMI automatic weapons?

Also, I will repeat what I asked Cletus.  My 30-06 has twice the "power" of a .223 AR-15 or equivalent.  My 7mm has even MORE "power" that the 30-06.  Neither are considered "assault" because the have a wood stock and aren't "black and scary"?

Maybe you should stick to criticizing thing you have actual knowledge about, like obscure books.

So why do these nut jobs always use AR-15 type guns with lots of bullets? FIREPOWER! Your 30-06 may pack a bigger punch but you'd wear yourself out reloading. 

[tvguy]

ASSAULT is a VERB.  An ACTION.  There is no such thing as an "assault rifle".  A gun, ANY gun, is a tool.  The hand that wields it can be benevolent, or evil, but the ASSAULT is an ACTION taken by the PERSON.

It's an easy concept, to me.

Forget grammar for a minute. You always seem to return to word juggling when the term assault rifle is mentioned. Who cares what people call these rifles? Let's call them weapon A2. Weapon A2 is a military style firearm like the AK47, AR15, HK93 and similar guns. And yes, any gun is a tool, but since you can't possibly control what people do with them, you might make them a little harder to get for people that should not have access to them. 

It's an easy concept to me.

Of course. "Rounds per minute" may not be important in bringing down a Buck, but if your goal is to kill a bunch of people in a crowded place you want FIREPOWER. Assault that verb.

EVERY SINGLE SEMI AUTO WEAPON FIRES AT THE SAME "ROUNDS PER MINUTE".  How fast you pull the trigger.  So is it your argument to ban ALL SEMI automatic weapons?

Also, I will repeat what I asked Cletus.  My 30-06 has twice the "power" of a .223 AR-15 or equivalent.  My 7mm has even MORE "power" that the 30-06.  Neither are considered "assault" because the have a wood stock and aren't "black and scary"?

Maybe you should stick to criticizing thing you have actual knowledge about, like obscure books.

So why do these nut jobs always use AR-15 type guns with lots of bullets? FIREPOWER! Your 30-06 may pack a bigger punch but you'd wear yourself out reloading. 

That's a good point Wonky I though the same thing about his hunting guns. They are probably't bolt action.

Actually the nut jobs don't always AR- 15 type guns. The use pistols more often but it's true they like the AR's and large magazines.

[Hugo]

ASSAULT is a VERB.  An ACTION.  There is no such thing as an "assault rifle".  A gun, ANY gun, is a tool.  The hand that wields it can be benevolent, or evil, but the ASSAULT is an ACTION taken by the PERSON.

It's an easy concept, to me.

Forget grammar for a minute. You always seem to return to word juggling when the term assault rifle is mentioned. Who cares what people call these rifles? Let's call them weapon A2. Weapon A2 is a military style firearm like the AK47, AR15, HK93 and similar guns. And yes, any gun is a tool, but since you can't possibly control what people do with them, you might make them a little harder to get for people that should not have access to them. 

It's an easy concept to me.

Of course. "Rounds per minute" may not be important in bringing down a Buck, but if your goal is to kill a bunch of people in a crowded place you want FIREPOWER. Assault that verb.

EVERY SINGLE SEMI AUTO WEAPON FIRES AT THE SAME "ROUNDS PER MINUTE".  How fast you pull the trigger.  So is it your argument to ban ALL SEMI automatic weapons?

Also, I will repeat what I asked Cletus.  My 30-06 has twice the "power" of a .223 AR-15 or equivalent.  My 7mm has even MORE "power" that the 30-06.  Neither are considered "assault" because the have a wood stock and aren't "black and scary"?

Maybe you should stick to criticizing thing you have actual knowledge about, like obscure books.

So why do these nut jobs always use AR-15 type guns with lots of bullets? FIREPOWER! Your 30-06 may pack a bigger punch but you'd wear yourself out reloading. 

I COULD have a 25 round clip for a 30-06  or 7mm tomorrow.  You are drowning here.