As many here know my views on firearm ownership

m551sheridan said:
I have not read all the posting here, I am sure this has already been said - I am pro gun but I am in agreement on making changes..

there is no need for 50 round extended pistol magazines sold to the public.

there is no need for 50 round+ drum magazines sold to the public.

there is no need for a Mac-10 type weapon to be sold to the public.

to have an M-14/FNFAL, etc? I can see limiting the capacity to 10 rounds

the same for the AR's (which I think is an excellent varmint rifle

an Uzi? No, or any like weapons

I agree with the magazine argument - except less would possibly be killed if the capacity were limited - but close quarter assault weapons have no place in the general populous or easily obtained.

I've had opportunity to play with most NATO and WARSAW Pact weapons... had a ball shooting such from dawn to dusk but I can see not allowing many to be had.

that little soap box having been said I reiterate once again

only a fool blames the tool.
Click to expand...

How long does it take you to change a magazine on a M-14 or FNFAL, half a second maybe a couple of seconds on a bad day?

Most of the people that seem to go nuts with these weapons are not people that woke up one morning and thought "F**K it, I am off to buy a gun and shoot up my local [insert target here]" they are people who have used these weapons extensively none of them show up at the target with one really big magazine they almost always carry multiple weapons.

It is because of this that I believe the argument of high capacity magazines is little more than a red herring at best it is a cosmetic sacrifice and will do nothing to make people safer.

It remains my opinion that banning certain guns, magazines, suppressors or what ever other fixtures you feel might be dangerous is pointless because all guns can achieve the exact same result it would be like banning red cars to cut the road toll.

Fixing the reason these people go nuts must be your top priority and putting measures in place to reduce the ease at which criminals and the insane seem to be able to get weapons and the instances of mass shootings will reduce themselves.
 
Fienstien announced back in Sept she was going to reintro the ban bill, she's just exploiting the situation for advancing her personal views.
 
Yeah but lets be honest here the pro-gun crowd are their own worst enemies, I think it was Spike that mentioned during the discussions about one of last years mass shootings or maybe the previous years ones that unless you learn to regulate yourselves and come up with answers to these problems it would be done for you.
Well now here we are a couple of years later and it seems that you have had one massacre too many so now the politicians are going to start the process of problem solving their way which means you lose a few rights and a lot of money.

The NRA instead of seriously and honestly looking into ways of curbing gun violence have dug their heels in and refused to do anything more than advocate more guns and in the process have managed to destroy their credibility quite frankly it couldn't have done worse if it had congratulated the killer on expressing his 2nd Amendment rights and threatened to sue the families of the victims for getting in the way of his bullets.

Hell at least the pro-gun senators and congressmen were smart enough to shut up and stay out of sight.

Fortunately for you politicians invariably screw things up so I wouldn't expect a lot of changes this time but if I was a pro-gun person I would be hoping at this stage that there isn't another shooting in the next couple of months because the ground swell of opinion doesn't appear to be going with the "guns for everyone" crowd.
 
Yeah that will teach him to have an opinion and to really prove his case chances are some fanatic will probably shoot him.

However I would be inclined to let the police use those 30000 names as good start on background checks.

The funny thing is that if someone produced a 60,000 strong petition to dispose of the 2nd Amendment it would be seen as a joke.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
How long does it take you to change a magazine on a M-14 or FNFAL, half a second maybe a couple of seconds on a bad day?

Most of the people that seem to go nuts with these weapons are not people that woke up one morning and thought "F**K it, I am off to buy a gun and shoot up my local [insert target here]" they are people who have used these weapons extensively none of them show up at the target with one really big magazine they almost always carry multiple weapons.

It is because of this that I believe the argument of high capacity magazines is little more than a red herring at best it is a cosmetic sacrifice and will do nothing to make people safer.

It remains my opinion that banning certain guns, magazines, suppressors or what ever other fixtures you feel might be dangerous is pointless because all guns can achieve the exact same result it would be like banning red cars to cut the road toll.

Fixing the reason these people go nuts must be your top priority and putting measures in place to reduce the ease at which criminals and the insane seem to be able to get weapons and the instances of mass shootings will reduce themselves.
Click to expand...

Monty

Those seconds to change magazines can make all the difference between life and death.

Case in point, the 1993 LIRR massacre where a deranged gunman on a LIRR train went along the aisles of the training shooting everyone he saw. He killed 6 and wounded 19. The shooter used 2x 15 round magazines, the second time he attempted to reloaded 3 of the passengers grabbed him and wrestled him to the ground.

Now had he a 8 or 10 round clip, that's somewhere between 8-10 shots he wouldn't gave gotten off and at least an extra few seconds for his potential victims to react. So those seconds can make a world of difference.

Furthermore what good are they? They offer nothing but a minor convenience to either the sportsman, hunter, and as for self defense anybody who claims they need more than say 8-10 shots to 'defend' themselves is a public menace and shouldn't own a gun.

As for Piers Morgan, I always thought he was an ass. But those 30,000 people who signed that stupid petition thinking they know the Second Amendment might want to first study the First Amendment.
 
Last edited:
I would suggest that most mass shootings are carried out by gunman with more than one weapon though, when you are not planning to survive the attack reloading is not a major concern.
 
...I would pull my kid so fast heads would spin if teachers carried in the classroom...it is freaking insane to even bring that up. Are you serious? Really?

As for this idea we are losing freedom if we have more gun laws...sorry, we have ALREADY lost our freedom. It is GONE.

I consider myself pro-gun, I own firearms as does my family. However, when we are scared to go to the movies, to send our children to school or to go to the store without carrying a weapon our freedoms, our basic rights as American's have already been taken from us. This fear from terrorism must stop and if we need a few stricter gun laws so be it.
 
MontyB said:
I would suggest that most mass shootings are carried out by gunman with more than one weapon though, when you are not planning to survive the attack reloading is not a major concern.
Click to expand...

But they do reload, even the suicidal ones. Remember their main determination isn't suicide (they accept that as a finality to their act) their main motivation is to take out as many people as possible. At Columbine one of the shooters reloaded his carbine 9 times and he was still carrying a shotgun and a handgun
 
pixiedustboo said:
...I would pull my kid so fast heads would spin if teachers carried in the classroom...it is freaking insane to even bring that up. Are you serious? Really?

As for this idea we are losing freedom if we have more gun laws...sorry, we have ALREADY lost our freedom. It is GONE.

I consider myself pro-gun, I own firearms as does my family. However, when we are scared to go to the movies, to send our children to school or to go to the store without carrying a weapon our freedoms, our basic rights as American's have already been taken from us. This fear from terrorism must stop and if we need a few stricter gun laws so be it.
Click to expand...

My school didn't have armed teachers, but they did have armed security guards due to the neighborhood my high school was in. They were useless by the way, wouldn't have scarred a cat. It wouldn't scare me having armed teachers, I just don't think it would do any good. A teacher is not a soldier or a police officer and doing so would do nothing to determine criminals and the insane from getting weapons. Its a red herring.

I also agree with Monty's comment about fixing a gun problem with more guns is like fighting a fire with gasoline. That's not the answer.

The real problem in my view is in the supply. It is simply too easy for the wrong crowd to get a gun this country, there are too many loopholes, not enough proper verification or enforcement. What we need in my view is a National database that cross-references medical history, criminal history, and also their firearms purchase history. I'd also close all the loopholes like the trade show loop holes.

Why the latter? Because most weapons used by criminals are obtained through straw purchases. In other words, shady dealers that sell 30-40 guns a month to a single client. This is precisely how the Mexican drug war is being fought, with guns bought legally in the USA in states like AZ that don't ask a lot of questions about the customer and then get smuggled back into Mexico.

Yes means a waiting period, but that really is a minor inconceivable to you worth saving the life an innocent?

Its either this or an outright ban. Either way, something has got to change as these are not isolated cases, this tragedy happens too often to continually get ignored.
 
MontyB said:
The NRA instead of seriously and honestly looking into ways of curbing gun violence have dug their heels in and refused to do anything more than advocate more guns and in the process have managed to destroy their credibility
Click to expand...
All the NRA did was call for armed guards/police in schools, Bill Clinton proposed the same thing, with Federal funding, while Prez & no one was calling him a gun nut for it. I would have pushed for repeal of the Defenceless at school Act

mmarsh said:
Monty

Those seconds to change magazines can make all the difference between life and death.

Case in point, the 1993 LIRR massacre where a deranged gunman on a LIRR train went along the aisles of the training shooting everyone he saw. He killed 6 and wounded 19. The shooter used 2x 15 round magazines, the second time he attempted to reloaded 3 of the passengers grabbed him and wrestled him to the ground.

Now had he a 8 or 10 round clip, that's somewhere between 8-10 shots he wouldn't gave gotten off and at least an extra few seconds for his potential victims to react. So those seconds can make a world of difference.

Furthermore what good are they? They offer nothing but a minor convenience to either the sportsman, hunter, and as for self defense anybody who claims they need more than say 8-10 shots to 'defend' themselves is a public menace and shouldn't own a gun.

As for Piers Morgan, I always thought he was an ass. But those 30,000 people who signed that stupid petition thinking they know the Second Amendment might want to first study the First Amendment.
Click to expand...
Rushing someone while changing mags only works if there's someone really close by who's uninjured. Do foriengers have 1st Admendment Rights? Piers was a model of professional journalism calling the head of Gun Owners of America an idiot during the interview, snicker.

pixiedustboo said:
...I would pull my kid so fast heads would spin if teachers carried in the classroom...it is freaking insane to even bring that up. Are you serious? Really?

As for this idea we are losing freedom if we have more gun laws...sorry, we have ALREADY lost our freedom. It is GONE.

I consider myself pro-gun, I own firearms as does my family. However, when we are scared to go to the movies, to send our children to school or to go to the store without carrying a weapon our freedoms, our basic rights as American's have already been taken from us. This fear from terrorism must stop and if we need a few stricter gun laws so be it.
Click to expand...
There's north of 23,000 gun laws at the Fed., State & local levels, you'd think if passing Laws was the answer, we'd be there already. You really think those kids & teachers woudn't have had a better chance if having guns had been an option?

mmarsh said:
But they do reload, even the suicidal ones. Remember their main determination isn't suicide (they accept that as a finality to their act) their main motivation is to take out as many people as possible. At Columbine one of the shooters reloaded his carbine 9 times and he was still carrying a shotgun and a handgun
Click to expand...

mmarsh said:
My school didn't have armed teachers, but they did have armed security guards due to the neighborhood my high school was in. They were useless by the way, wouldn't have scarred a cat. It wouldn't scare me having armed teachers, I just don't think it would do any good. A teacher is not a soldier or a police officer and doing so would do nothing to determine criminals and the insane from getting weapons. Its a red herring.

I also agree with Monty's comment about fixing a gun problem with more guns is like fighting a fire with gasoline. That's not the answer.

The real problem in my view is in the supply. It is simply too easy for the wrong crowd to get a gun this country, there are too many loopholes, not enough proper verification or enforcement. What we need in my view is a National database that cross-references medical history, criminal history, and also their firearms purchase history. I'd also close all the loopholes like the trade show loop holes.

Why the latter? Because most weapons used by criminals are obtained through straw purchases. In other words, shady dealers that sell 30-40 guns a month to a single client. This is precisely how the Mexican drug war is being fought, with guns bought legally in the USA in states like AZ that don't ask a lot of questions about the customer and then get smuggled back into Mexico.

Yes means a waiting period, but that really is a minor inconceivable to you worth saving the life an innocent?
.
Click to expand...
The cartels must not be as smart as people think considering their world wide smuggling of drugs gives them the opportunity to buy real AKs cheap compared to the look a likes in the US. Not to mention Fast N Furious.
There are waiting periods. All gun Laws are in effect at Gun Shows. Better cross refrencing would help.
 
George

1. A small chance is better than no chance at all. Forcing a gunman to reload also gives people another option which is to run.

2. The constitution applies to everyone within the US, this includes non-citizens. Hence, Morgan is perfectly entitled to speak his mind.

3. Since drugs is a billion dollar industry, Money isn't much of a problem to the cartels. And getting weapons shipped in quantity from elsewhere is harder than you think. Why would you bother when you get them right over the border?
 
mmarsh said:
George

1. A small chance is better than no chance at all. Forcing a gunman to reload also gives people another option which is to run.

3. Since drugs is a billion dollar industry, Money isn't much of a problem to the cartels. And getting weapons shipped in quantity from elsewhere is harder than you think. Why would you bother when you get them right over the border?
Click to expand...
Still better to rush him with a bullet. Considering the cartels send airliners loaded with drugs around the world, real AKs shouldn't be much of a problem.
 
George said:
Still better to rush him with a bullet. Considering the cartels send airliners loaded with drugs around the world, real AKs shouldn't be much of a problem.
Click to expand...

Drugs don't sent off metal detectors. Furthermore Airports now have scanners that can detect even the smallest traces of explosives/propellants.

One of the last trips I took I had a nail clipper taken away by Airport Security because it was deemed a threat.
 
mmarsh said:
Drugs don't sent off metal detectors. Furthermore Airports now have scanners that can detect even the smallest traces of explosives/propellants.

One of the last trips I took I had a nail clipper taken away by Airport Security because it was deemed a threat.
Click to expand...
Wasn't talking about smuggling through Le Borget. Airliners belonging to the Cartels have been found abandoned on runways in remote areas around the world, in other places 3rd world airports have been payed to look the other way.
 
George and anyone else who has lost their fracking mind wanting teachers armed:

I do not know what the solution is to this "problem" we are having in the United States, BUT if stricter gun laws would help I say go for it. That being said I do NOT think that is our end-all solution, we have a sickness in this country and it is killing us. We have to stop sweeping it under the rug or saying more guns will fix the problem.

We do not have "freedom" when we are worried about our children being slaughtered in school. We do not have "freedom" when we have to weigh if we are willing to die to go see The Hobbit. I understand everyday we have risks, but this is America for Christ's sake, not Yemen. We should be able to walk to the mall without worrying about being shot.

This is just my opinion, I think becoming too extreme either way (more-unreasonable-laws or more guns) is not going to change this issue, it is something else....
 
P.S. If I had balls I would say the NRA could suck them. Bringing up the NRA here just shows how pointless this topic has become.

The NRA doesn't care if these shootings to stop, they understand there must be sacrifice to keep our current gun laws, if a classroom full of dead kids has to happen a few times so be. The NRA is using this to get the idea of 'MORE guns will keep us safe' and 'put blame on video games, not guns.' It is disgusting.

That being said, I do NOT blame guns, but I do second some of what Sheridan said in his earlier post on regulating what is available to the public.
 
pixiedustboo said:
George and anyone else who has lost their fracking mind wanting teachers armed:

I do not know what the solution is to this "problem" we are having in the United States, BUT if stricter gun laws would help I say go for it. That being said I do NOT think that is our end-all solution, we have a sickness in this country and it is killing us. We have to stop sweeping it under the rug or saying more guns will fix the problem.

We do not have "freedom" when we are worried about our children being slaughtered in school. We do not have "freedom" when we have to weigh if we are willing to die to go see The Hobbit. I understand everyday we have risks, but this is America for Christ's sake, not Yemen. We should be able to walk to the mall without worrying about being shot.

This is just my opinion, I think becoming too extreme either way (more-unreasonable-laws or more guns) is not going to change this issue, it is something else....
Click to expand...

pixiedustboo said:
P.S. If I had balls I would say the NRA could suck them. Bringing up the NRA here just shows how pointless this topic has become.

The NRA doesn't care if these shootings to stop, they understand there must be sacrifice to keep our current gun laws, if a classroom full of dead kids has to happen a few times so be. The NRA is using this to get the idea of 'MORE guns will keep us safe' and 'put blame on video games, not guns.' It is disgusting.

That being said, I do NOT blame guns, but I do second some of what Sheridan said in his earlier post on regulating what is available to the public.
Click to expand...
I can't see how a legal mandate that a group location has to be defenceless is a good idea. As far as the NRA, as a group all the NRA has caolled for is S.R.O.s, an end to "Gun Free Zones" would restore people Right to self defence but they haven't called for that. As I said earlier, Pres. Clinton called for S.R.O.s & Fed. funding of them & no one called him a gun nut for it. School employee who have a CCW should be able to carry at work, they're trusted by the State to carry everywhere else that's legal to carry, the deterent effect is needed & hopefully the nuts will avoid schools. Right now there is no real deterent & as has been pointed out SROs can't be everywhere at a school. We also have to look at the Rights of 300 million americans vs the actions of a few in areas where Rights have been ended(gun free zones). Back in the '60s Obama's Terrorist buddy Bill Ayers & the Weather Underground was bombing buildings. BATF wanted to ban possesion of black powder. The NRA could have easily gone along with it, the public safety & all that, but....there was a small number of Citizens who were into hunting with muzzleloaders. Black powder is essential for that & the NRA stood up for them & won. Today the Weather Underground is a dim memory & huge numbers of people enjoy muzzleloading hunting, re-enacting of the Civil War, Rev War, Rondeviousing & other early conflicts, & the black powder section of cowboy action shooting sport.
 
If it is about saving children, as so many claim, and not getting rid of guns - then why not stop people who can’t provide for kids from having them? Where is the movement to get rid of Bikes, Cars, Swimming, Skateboards, etc.: all of which hurt many more children than guns?

What about the Mayor of Chicago publicly being against armed guards on schools when his own children attend a school with armed guards.

I think it only becomes about saving children when somebody has another agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top