GUN CONTROL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

My general statement wasnt about ONLY US nukes on ONLY US soil, but ask and ye shall receive enlightenment. There have been over 2000 nuclear device tests worldwide since Trinity in 1945. The total official count of US device tests is 1054, so yes, they got tested ALL THE TIME. The last US test was Operation Julin in September 1992, at the Nevada test site, which consisted of 8 different devices (all of which had their own codename). Im gonna guess that at least a couple of those were tested in the middle of the desert underground, so no one experienced any fallout. Bush Sr. signed a moratorium on nuclear device testing in October of 1992. The last known nuclear device test was in 2009 by North Korea. Did I really need to go that in depth on the subject? No, but I had to make your attempt to make me look like a dumbass fail miserably.

---

Julin was an UNDERGROUND test. Normal people do not have the capability to perform UNDERGROUND testing. ATMOSPHERIC testing is the only option that an individual would be possibly capable of doing. The US has not performed atmospheric testing since 1962. Are you really trying to use underground testing as a reasonable possibility, when the discussion was specifically nuclear testing by an individual with US citizenship on US soil? You have lost focus of what the original question was and have been grasping at straws.

North Korea has claimed that they tested on back on 2009, which is not proven. The US has had zero nuclear testing that is publically acknowledged in over 20 years, partially due to the 1996 treaty that Clinton signed - that is hardly "all the time".

Read up, and learn. Nuclear weapons testing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Maybe. I could also fire a bullet up into the air and kill someone...unintentionally. It has happend.

---

True statement. And under our existing laws, you could be convicted and sentenced. No reason to register, ban, or seize all firearms. just enforce existing laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

Julin was an UNDERGROUND test. Normal people do not have the capability to perform UNDERGROUND testing. ATMOSPHERIC testing is the only option that an individual would be possibly capable of doing. The US has not performed atmospheric testing since 1962. Are you really trying to use underground testing as a reasonable possibility, when the discussion was specifically nuclear testing by an individual with US citizenship on US soil? You have lost focus of what the original question was and have been grasping at straws.

North Korea has claimed that they tested on back on 2009, which is not proven. The US has had zero nuclear testing that is publically acknowledged in over 20 years, partially due to the 1996 treaty that Clinton signed - that is hardly "all the time".

Read up, and learn. Nuclear weapons testing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

It would have been much easier for you to type "blank cd, you were incredibly 100% right". Read through the thread to see what the original question was and stop acting like a moron. You're the one reaching for straws now.

"normal people don't have the capacity to perform underground tests"

You're a fucking idiot. Normal people also don't have the capacity to acquire military grade nuclear warheads either.

How the hell did gun control turn into a question of nukes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

How the hell did gun control turn into a question of nukes?

---

Lol. I dunno, I made a joke, he took it seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

It would have been much easier for you to type "blank cd, you were incredibly 100% right". Read through the thread to see what the original question was and stop acting like a moron. You're the one reaching for straws now.

"normal people don't have the capacity to perform underground tests"

You're a fucking idiot. Normal people also don't have the capacity to acquire military grade nuclear warheads either.

---

Re-read it your self. This discussion was brought up by you asking if it would be ok for a regular citizen to own a nuclear weapon. Sinfix stated that there was no problem owning it, but you couldn't use it without harming others. YOU stated that they were tested all the time, impling that anyone could do the same testing. How exactly are they supposed to do that except as an atmospheric explosion? How about then the answer to your original question then is yes, an individual should technically not be limited from owning, and using one - as long as they have the same underground capabilities. The only issue is how they comply with the US treaty (which is not currently in force) that eliminates nuclear testing. This issue is because you live in the US, and are subject to the government - another issue for another discussion.
Is that the not the real answer to your original questions, or are you just typing with no real goal of real discussion?

You weren't joking, you were trying to find a way to corrolate limitation of gun ownership to the limitation of nuclear weapons - in other words, to say that an assault rifle or handgun is just as dangerous and should be limited/banned. I know where you were trying to take your arguments. Technically, you would be correct, although you don't realize it. The AK-47 has killed more poeple than all nuclear weapons combined, so it technically is more dangerous. That would be a better argument for you to have brought up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Nukes are tested all the time without harming anyone.

---

David, what 2nd grade english class did you not graduate from that made you think that was anything remotely close to a question? Without getting into analyzing sentence structure, the lack of a question mark did it for me.

My original statement was utterly and unequivocally 100% correct. Thank you for playing.

Then what was your point to even typing it? Just to see if you could get words on a screen?

We are on the subject of US firearms and laws, and you want to just pop out a random global statment? That's what you are going with? And you think it will go unquestioned?

The facts are that no one agrees with your liberal gun-banning ideology here, because it doesn't work. It doesn't do anything to improve society, and only weakens the public.

There are approximately 33 million legal hunters in the US. Why shoud they give up their firearms? They aren't the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

The facts are that no one agrees with your liberal gun-banning ideology here, because it doesn't work.

---

Further proof that you don't read

I brought up nukes too because sinflix had stated that since individuals right to bear arms was based on being able to fight the government, individuals should not be limited in their ability to obtain firepower when the government is not so limited. My question was not to equate a handgun to a nuke but to try to come up with a consensus on where to draw the lines for what is acceptable for individuals to own and what is reasonable regulation. Most people would probably agree that it is somewhere between handguns and nukes but where exactly should it be and why? Sinflix seemed to be saying that anything and everything was fine.

I think both sides need to acknowledge the following:

The Liberals need to realize that:
not everyone with an assault weapon is a gun toting redneck
Banning firearms as a whole isnt going to solve firearm crimes

The Republicans/Gun Advocates need to realize that:
Stop using the 2nd amendment as a means to mask the real issues at hand.
Stop using political rhetoric to halt any discussion on increasing safety measures for owners of firearms.

The gun industry just needs to STFU when it comes to all this HUNTING bullshit. You dont need an AR15 to hunt deer. PERIOD. you dont need 100 round fucking magazines to hunt QUAIL. Stop treating me like im a moron. Just say what you mean. "WE REALLY LIKE RAMBO, AND THIS SHIT IS FUCKING COOL SO WE MADE IT" and leave it at that.

Democrats need to stop pouncing on any gun shooting death and say "BAN ALL GUNS WE WILL BE BETTER OFF".

Just more evidence that both sides arent SERIOUS about solving the problems

Puerto Rico has 3. something million people. Last year, over 1,000 were assasinated. Japan has arguiably 100x the amount of people, and only 7 assasinations took place last year. Puerto Ricans are allowed to have guns, while Japan citizens are not. What do we see here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nelson9995

Puerto Rico has 3. something million people. Last year, over 1,000 were assasinated. Japan has arguiably 100x the amount of people, and only 7 assasinations took place last year. Puerto Ricans are allowed to have guns, while Japan citizens are not. What do we see here?

---

different people, different culture. much more complicated than that

saw this on the internets today:

http://www.therightplanet.com/wp-con...-free-zone.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

I think both sides need to acknowledge the following:

The Liberals need to realize that:
not everyone with an assault weapon is a gun toting redneck
Banning firearms as a whole isnt going to solve firearm crimes

The Republicans/Gun Advocates need to realize that:
Stop using the 2nd amendment as a means to mask the real issues at hand.
Stop using political rhetoric to halt any discussion on increasing safety measures for owners of firearms.

The gun industry just needs to STFU when it comes to all this HUNTING bullshit. You dont need an AR15 to hunt deer. PERIOD. you dont need 100 round fucking magazines to hunt QUAIL. Stop treating me like im a moron. Just say what you mean. "WE REALLY LIKE RAMBO, AND THIS SHIT IS FUCKING COOL SO WE MADE IT" and leave it at that.

Democrats need to stop pouncing on any gun shooting death and say "BAN ALL GUNS WE WILL BE BETTER OFF".

Just more evidence that both sides arent SERIOUS about solving the problems

---

I honestly do hunt hogs with either an AR15 or an AK47..............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

I honestly do hunt hogs with either an AR15 or an AK47..............

---

i didnt say you CANT hunt with an AR15, im saying trying to pass it off as its only used for that is complete bullshit, you know it, i know it.

Its like saying a ZR1 is a GREAT FAMILY CAR! NO THE FUCK ITS NOT, ITS USED FOR 1 THING, TO GO REALLY REALLY FAST , DESPITE WHAT THE SPEED LIMIT IS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nelson9995

Puerto Rico has 3. something million people. Last year, over 1,000 were assasinated. Japan has arguiably 100x the amount of people, and only 7 assasinations took place last year. Puerto Ricans are allowed to have guns, while Japan citizens are not. What do we see here?

---

Switzerland.
Police statistics for the year 2006 records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). As of 2007, Switzerland had a population of about 7,600,000. This would put the rate of killings or attempted killings with firearms at about one for every quarter million residents yearly. This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordnance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

I think both sides need to acknowledge the following:

The Liberals need to realize that:
not everyone with an assault weapon is a gun toting redneck
Banning firearms as a whole isnt going to solve firearm crimes

The Republicans/Gun Advocates need to realize that:
Stop using the 2nd amendment as a means to mask the real issues at hand.
Stop using political rhetoric to halt any discussion on increasing safety measures for owners of firearms.

The gun industry just needs to STFU when it comes to all this HUNTING bullshit. You dont need an AR15 to hunt deer. PERIOD. you dont need 100 round fucking magazines to hunt QUAIL. Stop treating me like im a moron. Just say what you mean. "WE REALLY LIKE RAMBO, AND THIS SHIT IS FUCKING COOL SO WE MADE IT" and leave it at that.

Democrats need to stop pouncing on any gun shooting death and say "BAN ALL GUNS WE WILL BE BETTER OFF".

Just more evidence that both sides arent SERIOUS about solving the problems

---

The problem is that you can't meet in the middle if either side is unwilling to. Some Democrats have repeatedly stated that only a complete ban is acceptable, which defeats them from even discussing it.

Assault rifles are not NEEDED for defense - we all know that. However, handguns are useful for defense, and rifles and shotguns are legitimate hunting weapons. I have no problem with making all assault rifles need a FFL. Fully auto ones already do anyway. That still won't keep them out of the hands of criminals though. Don't think for a moment that it will improve crime rates.

The Second Amendment is not a mask of issues, it is a Constitutionally-protected freedom. If you really want to reduce gun-related crimes, make the penalties so severe that no one will risk using them for crime AND enforce those laws. Leaving someone in jail for a few years is not enough of a deterent. Make it hard labor and capital punishment that is quickly metted out, and you will see crime drop, as it would no longer be worth the risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

I honestly do hunt hogs with either an AR15 or an AK47..............

---

Why? Generally, hunting rifles work better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

The problem is that you can't meet in the middle if either side is unwilling to. Some Democrats have repeatedly stated that only a complete ban is acceptable, which defeats them from even discussing it.

Assault rifles are not NEEDED for defense - we all know that. However, handguns are useful for defense, and rifles and shotguns are legitimate hunting weapons. I have no problem with making all assault rifles need a FFL. Fully auto ones already do anyway. That still won't keep them out of the hands of criminals though. Don't think for a moment that it will improve crime rates.

The Second Amendment is not a mask of issues, it is a Constitutionally-protected freedom. If you really want to reduce gun-related crimes, make the penalties so severe that no one will risk using them for crime AND enforce those laws. Leaving someone in jail for a few years is not enough of a deterent. Make it hard labor and capital punishment that is quickly metted out, and you will see crime drop, as it would no longer be worth the risk.

---

i have no disagreements with anything you said.

My point about the second amendment is anytime someone even wants to talk about reforming/modifying/discussing gun regulations, laws, there ARE PEOPLE ON THE RIGHT THAT SCREAM 2nd amendment and use that to mask any decent conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

i didnt say you CANT hunt with an AR15, im saying trying to pass it off as its only used for that is complete bullshit, you know it, i know it.

Its like saying a ZR1 is a GREAT FAMILY CAR! NO THE FUCK ITS NOT, ITS USED FOR 1 THING, TO GO REALLY REALLY FAST , DESPITE WHAT THE SPEED LIMIT IS.

---

ZR1 is a great family car. If someone uses it for any other purpose than transportation, give them a ticket. Problem solved!!!!

Does anyone need AR15s or ZR1s? no.... but do you want to live in a world where all the cars top out @ 55mph and the guns are made to be adequate for hunting?

My argument for excessive firepower is this....

If someone breaks into my house, i do not want to have a fair fight with them. I do not want my life to be left up to my marksmanship vs my attacker's marksmanship. I want the advantage. I dont want to have to conserve my shot, count how many bullets i have left or think about having to hit them in the right place or having to shoot them multiple times to stop them. I want a gun that will cut my living room wall down and kill anyone in it's path. If the government doesnt like my methods of self defense, put a policemen in my driveway 24/7 365 days a year and i'll let him take care of it. If theyre not equip to do that, then let me handle it how i see fit.

When im hunting, i want something fun to shoot and advantageous to the situation. Hunting in a deer stand, i want accuracy and 1 shot stopping power and would opt for a 270 or a 308. Hunting on foot, i prefer something closer to an assault rifle. Lets say i step thru a bush and a 300 lb boar charges me, i dont want to have a bolt action rifle in my hand, or a bear, pack of coyotes, cougar or anything like that........ if the government doesnt like it, assign a sniper to cover me the entire time im hunting and shoot anything that approaches me aggressively. If theyre not equip to do that.......... then let me handle it.

I didnt advocate banning AR15s or ZR1s!!! I Just said state the fucking purpose for them honestly. Im not questioning what you want to use both for because I am an intelligent human being , i know what they are used for.

1 is to rip zombies to pieces
1 is to shred the speed limit

Dont lie to me and say 1 is used "TO HUNT" and 1 is "A responsible family car". The only difference is that the ZR1 is marketed as what it is supposed to do. AR15s and assault weapons are marketed as being TACTICAL and such, but when they are used in that way people scream "2nd amendment USED FOR HUNTING!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

Why? Generally, hunting rifles work better.

---

more fun to shoot a moving target with an ak47 than it is to shoot one from across a field that doesnt see me. Either way.... bacon is bacon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

I didnt advocate banning AR15s or ZR1s!!! I Just said state the fucking purpose for them honestly. Im not questioning what you want to use both for because I am an intelligent human being , i know what they are used for.

1 is to rip zombies to pieces
1 is to shred the speed limit

Dont lie to me and say 1 is used "TO HUNT" and 1 is "A responsible family car". The only difference is that the ZR1 is marketed as what it is supposed to do. AR15s and assault weapons are marketed as being TACTICAL and such, but when they are used in that way people scream "2nd amendment USED FOR HUNTING!"

---

but isnt that how our entire legal system is structured? to prove a reasonable doubt....... lawyers get paid millions of dollars to sit in a court room and argue any possible scenario they can imagine to prove a reasonable doubt. So why cant gun owners and sports car owners do the same?

I use an AR15 to hunt pigs because im a poor shot and cant hit them a 308. I cant shoot a shotgun because a previous shoulder injury causes it to hurt me. I use the pigs to feed my family because i cant afford to shop at the supermarket. I drive a ZR1 to impress women. The ZR1 is also the reason i cant afford to feed my family. If not for the ZR1, i wouldnt have a family to feed because my wife wouldnt have noticed me.

Reasonable doubt.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y44..._LEPNRev-1.jpg
OUTFITTING FOR OUR FINEST WAR FIGHTERS

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y44...USETHISONE.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/201...terACRHuff.jpg
COMBAT RIFLE

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f1...9mmAR15-Ad.jpg

COMBAT RIFLE

http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/...Labeled_lg.jpg
AD SHOWING US MILITARY



I see a ton of TACTICAL, COMBAT, MILITARY, WAR references. I dont see a god damn thing about HUNTING.

I searched CORvETTE ADs on google, couldnt find 1 that said "FAMILY CAR!" . They all claim it does what it was intended to do, drive really fast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y44..._LEPNRev-1.jpg
OUTFITTING FOR OUR FINEST WAR FIGHTERS

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y44...USETHISONE.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/201...terACRHuff.jpg
COMBAT RIFLE

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f1...9mmAR15-Ad.jpg

COMBAT RIFLE

http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/...Labeled_lg.jpg
AD SHOWING US MILITARY



I see a ton of TACTICAL, COMBAT, MILITARY, WAR references. I dont see a god damn thing about HUNTING.

I searched CORvETTE ADs on google, couldnt find 1 that said "FAMILY CAR!" . They all claim it does what it was intended to do, drive really fast

---

Women like things that "look pretty". My wife likes my ZR1 and doesnt know what an ls1 is. My driving record speaks for my driving habits. I've gone over the speed limit twice in the last 10 years and law enforcement handled my transgressions appropriately and i learned from the experiences. The few winters i tried hunting with a standard bolt action rifle, my family went hungry. Even though some would view the AR15 as a tactical military rifle, it's size and recoil best suits my frame and previously mentioned medical history. When i purchased my ar15 i was told that it was legal to own and that i could use it for hunting. I've been hunting successfully with it for years now and i rely on it to feed my family, i have no criminal history what so ever and am a tax paying american. You want to take my hunting rifle away because some crazed person ive never met committed a crime in a state/city that i've never visited using an AR15?

gotta get some food and get to work!

:goodjob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

You want to take my hunting rifle away because some crazed person ive never met committed a crime in a state/city that i've never visited using an AR15?

---

I DONT WANT TO TAKE ANYTHING AWAY! WHERE HAVE I ADVOCATED ANY BANS ON ANY GUNS??????

Im just saying its NO SECRET that gun industry markets a product for a specific use, then when its used in that manner, they fall back on "ITS FOR HUNTING, ITS the 2nd amendment, its OUR RIGHT!"

For once id love to see someone say "yeah, that guy killed a bunch of people because he bought a fucking semi auto zombie killer, it worked, successful test". The guns are marketed as TACTICAL and MILITARY COMBAT. Do you know what that means? It means they are designed TO KILL PEOPLE, MASS PEOPLE, TACTICALLY, WITHOUT THEM KNOWING, OR WITH MAXIMUM DAMAGE/KILL SHOTS.

Just OWN UP TO IT. That is what that shit is made and designed for. DONT TREAT ME LIKE IM STUPID like people are hunting Pheasants with AR15.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f2...d/IMG_3194.jpg

Most people have no desire to ban all guns. Even the president of the the Brady Campaign gun control group doesn't want to ban all guns. To argue against banning all guns is pointless because that is not a mainstream opinion. Most democrats would not vote for such a ban. The bill to allow guns in national parks was signed nearly unanimously and approved by Obama. If you think your guns are in any serious danger of being taken away, you are unduly paranoid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

Most people have no desire to ban all guns. Even the president of the the Brady Campaign gun control group doesn't want to ban all guns. To argue against banning all guns is pointless because that is not a mainstream opinion. Most democrats would not vote for such a ban. The bill to allow guns in national parks was signed nearly unanimously and approved by Obama. If you think your guns are in any serious danger of being taken away, you are unduly paranoid.

---

How about the Cybersecurity Bill? THIS PAST WEEK, Democratic senators offered an amendment to the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity gun magazines for some consumers - how is gun control related to cybersecurity?
The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.
The amendment is identical to a separate bill sponsored by Lautenberg. Feinstein was the sponsor of the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

Senator Dianne Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." CBS-TV's "60 Minutes", February 5, 1995
You still think that she isn't after a total gun ban?

Do you forget that Obama had the DOJ looking for a way that he could take executive action, and bypass Congress on gun control just last year?

Here is the reality of Congress - there are lots for gun control and lots against. I hope that you are correct that we are in no danger of losing legal rights to guns, but it's clear that there are people in power that want to take them all away.
US Senate - GOA Senate Ratings For The 112th Congress - Gun Owners Of America
House - GOA House Ratings for the 112th Congress - Gun Owners Of America

Banning high capacity magazines is different than an outright ban on assault weapons. I do understand the connection.

We should have a debate about what the country feels is right and wrong regarding arms. I dont think we should sell 100 round magazines for AR15s. Theres absolutely NO POINT in selling a high capicity magazine unless its for the military. But that opens up a can of worms that leads to what else the govt thinks is unacceptable which i dont want it to lead to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

Banning high capacity magazines is different than an outright ban on assault weapons. I do understand the connection.

We should have a debate about what the country feels is right and wrong regarding arms. I dont think we should sell 100 round magazines for AR15s. Theres absolutely NO POINT in selling a high capicity magazine unless its for the military. But that opens up a can of worms that leads to what else the govt thinks is unacceptable which i dont want it to lead to.

---

We banned high capacity magazines before - and crime rates did not drop because of it. What is the point of doing it now? You think that 15 shots is going to be more dangerous than 10 in the hands of a law-abiding citizen? Criminals will just carry more illegally obtained weapons.

The government has the tendency to continue to take from the citizens. They used to only have property and poll tax. Now, we have taxes on everything, and they always increase, and don't drop. Everytime you give up a little bit of freedom, they come back looking to take more.

10 to 15, no

10-15 to 100, YES.

Theres simply no need for a 100 round mag unless you are in Kabul or Kandahar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

I DONT WANT TO TAKE ANYTHING AWAY! WHERE HAVE I ADVOCATED ANY BANS ON ANY GUNS??????

Im just saying its NO SECRET that gun industry markets a product for a specific use, then when its used in that manner, they fall back on "ITS FOR HUNTING, ITS the 2nd amendment, its OUR RIGHT!"

For once id love to see someone say "yeah, that guy killed a bunch of people because he bought a fucking semi auto zombie killer, it worked, successful test". The guns are marketed as TACTICAL and MILITARY COMBAT. Do you know what that means? It means they are designed TO KILL PEOPLE, MASS PEOPLE, TACTICALLY, WITHOUT THEM KNOWING, OR WITH MAXIMUM DAMAGE/KILL SHOTS.

Just OWN UP TO IT. That is what that shit is made and designed for. DONT TREAT ME LIKE IM STUPID like people are hunting Pheasants with AR15.

---

It's not what you know, its what you can prove. My AR15 is a hunting rifle. Until i use it in combat or shoot a person with it, it's a hunting rifle. My ZR1 is a family car, the only reason it goes over 55mph is in case i ever need to rush my family to the hospital. Until i start getting reckless driving tickets weekly, you cant prove otherwise.

You know better..... or think you do, but its not about what you know, its what you can prove. You cant allow people to paint pictures based on what they "KNOW"...........

You're a rational person, so your point of view isnt that far fetched.... but if we allowed others to make decisions based on what they "know", the world could be a pretty scary place.

Christians "know" that Jesus is the answer to a happy life and that we should consider him in all decisions.
The NAACP "knows" that any crime committed against a black person was a racist hate crime.
BlankCD "knows" that the world would be a liberal paradise if we turned our lives over the government and let them take care of us.
Black people "know" that Obama is our best option for president.

so with that said.... you may "know" that i like AR15s because theyre cool and people drive zr1s because theyre pavement shredding beasts...... but you cant prove anything other than 1 is a rifle and 1 is a car, Both legal to own and enjoy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

10 to 15, no

10-15 to 100, YES.

Theres simply no need for a 100 round mag unless you are in Kabul or Kandahar.

---

Give me a reason not to have a 100 round magazine. Maybe i want to target shoot without reloading a lot, maybe i want to cut a tree down, maybe i just enjoy loud noises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

Give me a reason not to have a 100 round magazine. Maybe i want to target shoot without reloading a lot, maybe i want to cut a tree down, maybe i just enjoy loud noises.

---

because we regulate every other standard out there, why should guns be off limits?

I love flame throwers, why cant i own one? maybe i just want to charbroil a burger like chuck norris?

to be honest, I do use my AR15 to shoot yotes and hog on my property. That being said, my 2 daily carry weapons are way more dangerous to others than my AR15 is. It really doesnt matter what they do, those who have their stuff will be grandfathered in. I still have pre-ban guns from the last ban.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

because we regulate every other standard out there, why should guns be off limits?

I love flame throwers, why cant i own one? maybe i just want to charbroil a burger like chuck norris?

---

You should be allowed to use a flame thrower on your property. I'd suggest a course in fire safety and hold you responsible for the firefighter bill if you ever caught your yard on fire, but other than that...... you want to grill a burger from 20 yards away with a flame thrower.... god bless america, enjoy.

"because we regulate other things" is not a good enough answer for me, i want justification for these regulations. "we're banning 100 round magazines so that if someone goes on a killing spree, he will have to reload, giving police more time to respond to the scene" Ok, so if we're that anal about things, lets just ban any and everything dangerous that could be used as a weapon, lets shut the airports down and make everyone travel by hot air balloon since a jumbo jet could be used as a weapon.

The reason people have the "all or nothing" mentality is because we dont trust the government to decide what reasonable is.

David, I said "most" so pointing out one person who wants to ban guns doesn't prove anything. Give me a list of senators/congressmen even half of what it takes to pass a bill and then I will agree you have cause for concern. Until then, it is pretty far from mainstream.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

The reason people have the "all or nothing" mentality is because we dont trust the government to decide what reasonable is.

---

Then our representative democracy is a failed experiment since "we" elected those people.