NGD! Saiga content

[Mesa4x12er2]

 

Originally Posted by newholland

yep, but the main difference is ASKING why there's a percieved need isn't telling anybody what they can't do- it's parsing out motivation. i've already stated i don't see a need for 'em personally, and i won't apologize for not believing in military weapons for civilians. but i'm certainly not perpetuating any 'myth' that a one second google search doesn't confirm- people buy saigas cause they're easy conversions, and you'd be pretty bummed to do such a thing and crank off the standard 10 clip in 2 seconds.

that's just a reality, and denying it isn't doing anything either.

larry made a good point earlier, saying that tobacco and alcohol fall under the same loose heading. true enough-- they're 'dangerous', and as such, ought to be talked about in the same way-- if it'll kill you or others.. well.. it's worth a conversation at least.

is there a tipping point where irresponsible gun ownership outweighs responsible gun ownership? i hope to not find out. but i also hope i'm not coming across like i'm being the token anti gun liberal, 'cause i'm certainly not trying to. if that's the perception, i'm glad to be the sacrificial lamb to start the conversation-- but i'll say it ain't so, despite having an opinion in the matter.

 

I wasn't referring to you, just people in general that have no more of an argument than "because I said so."

[newholland]

 

Originally Posted by Mesa4x12er2

I wasn't referring to you, just people in general that have no more of an argument than "because I said so."

 

DOH.. sorry man. i WAS wondering-- but i shoulda known better.

[theAntihero]

 

 

 

 

 

nobody {censored}ING needs a gun (capitals and profanity intentional) 'cause in the grander scheme of human need-- they don't

 

 

 

 

I own, use and carry guns to protect myself from bear, cougar, moose and other wildlife. How are less guns going to make me safer?

 

 

 

 

 

having a 30 cartridge clip seems like an excuse to mod a gun to full auto.

 

 

 

 

No, just no and for god sakes its a "magazine", its like calling a guitar a banjo when you call it a "clip"

 

 

 

 

 

but they're all basically stock guns without big old clips.

 

 

 

 

Ar-15's "stock" clips are a 30 rounder. The PMR-30 my mother owns for protection is a 30rd 22mag. The "stock" clip on pretty much every single fullsize 9mm is at least 15rds and about 12 for 40s&w models. These are the actual magazines that the gun was designed for.

 

 

 

 

 

i'd limit guns to bolt action in the home, 'cause they're safe, impossible to hide, and that's basically what the constitution gave us rights for. that's just me.

 

 

 

 

Bolt action rifles didnt exist when the constitution was written and having people defend their apartments with their bolt action hunting rifles is a terrible idea. The average 30-06 round would penetrate thru the criminal being shot and go into the next 3 apartments at least, the range of a 30-06 is measured in miles and will continue going until it hits something hard enough to stop it.

 

 

 

 

 

but that's why it IS so fascinating. i have plenty of conservative friends, but i'd rather understand them than just get mad at them for what they believe-- because there may be something useful in what they think.

 

 

 

 

Newholland, you know basically nothing about the subject and this is the crux of the gun issue. Most people who are anti-gun know absolutely nothing about them except whatever TV has spoonfed them and its hard to have a debate with a person that isnt up to speed on the subject. If you want to have a serious discussion about guns, learn much more about them and ill be glad to debate them with you. Chances are once you learn about guns they wont be the scary thing that you previously knew little about.

[Jisatsu]

None of my (many) guns accept a clip.

Guns are made to kill things. I sincerly hope that they work for that, as that is why I bought them. To kill someone who wishes me harm.

Some guns kill better than others. Those that I own that are lacking in the deadly catagory I use for putting little holes in paper or bottles or other random objects, at distance.

It's time for people to grow up about the gun discussions, on both sides. Yes, guns kill people. Yes, people own guns to kill people. Yes, people own guns to target shoot and to practice marksmenship. Get over it.

[Ron Burgandy]

 

Originally Posted by larryguitar

Mad? I suppose. But arguing something of vital importance TO ME with seriously uninformed people gets me that way.

Address the alcohol vs. guns point. Address the fact that mag limits and semi-auto restrictions didn't work when we ACTUALLY DID THEM FOR 10 YEARS. Address some substantive points, rather than 'why do you need that' and such, and I'll be a bit more civil. But the grabbers never do, since they can't.

So again-alcohol is going to 'kill' more people this year than guns will. It serves no purpose whatsoever; nobody 'needs' it. Talk just as seriously about banning that, and I'll take you seriously.

Stop going on about how mag limits will somehow make anyone safer when I've stated my mag changes take .09 of a second-address that and I'll take you seriously.

Shoot the {censored} with some provocative comments about something that (to me, and many others) is a topic of vital-essential-importance, and you'll get snark back.

 

I just asked you questions. I've been amazingly civil with you, and received nothing but insults from you.

I've also not said once that guns should be banned. I'd easily argue that alcohol should be banned and if it was for the greater good then sweet. The number of drunk drivers is getting out of hand as well. Not sure what you're trying to get at with that comment. I'd give up my bourbon and scotch t save some lives, alcohol ain't that important.

If you can change mags so quickly why do you need extended mags for anything but competition? Sounds like mag limits aren't a big deal so fighting to keep high capacity mags makes me believe they carry some advantage.

You're not exactly speaking calmly here, so I don't know why you expect anyone to take your word as fact while not offering even questions in return.

[fretout]

 

Originally Posted by newholland

sure. thing is, it's not the same. i want explosives because i can use explosives. i want snuff films 'cause i use snuff films. i want LSD because i use LSD. i want a russian sex slave because i use russian sex slaves. der. the existence of things doesn't mean you can have them because want to use them.

like i said-- it's not me wanting to TAKE said large magazines-- but having three 10 cartridge clips doesn't seem like an inconvenience. having a 30 cartridge clip seems like an excuse to mod a gun to full auto. i fully know it's the person shooting the gun that's gonna hurt people- and like i said-- i don't have a dog in the fight as i'm not a gun guy. but i do wonder why people pretend they're not aware why these things exist. it's not just to not reload once every 30 shots. c'mon.

 

I'm not looking to argue, but first, do you know what's needed to convert a firearm to full auto? I'm not going to tell you because I don't want to give anyone any ideas, but just because we have hi capacity magazines (the term "clip" is actually inaccurate), that doesn't mean we want full auto. In all actuality, you will be less accurate shooting full than semi auto. Full auto exists only for suppressive fire and mowing people down, which most likely ends with the full auto guy getting killed. Not my idea of a good plan.

We have hi cap mags because it gives us the potential to have an advantage against an opponent. We won't have to bother ourselves with reloading as quickly. This is critical, especially in a defensive situation. I have 40 round and 75 round mags. Do I have them to shoot full auto? No. I have them so that I have bullets to send down range while my attacker is reloading. Period.

[larryguitar]

 

Originally Posted by Ron Burgandy

I just asked you questions. I've been amazingly civil with you, and received nothing but insults from you.

I've also not said once that guns should be banned. I'd easily argue that alcohol should be banned and if it was for the greater good then sweet. The number of drunk drivers is getting out of hand as well. Not sure what you're trying to get at with that comment. I'd give up my bourbon and scotch t save some lives, alcohol ain't that important.

If you can change mags so quickly why do you need extended mags for anything but competition? Sounds like mag limits aren't a big deal so fighting to keep high capacity mags makes me believe they carry some advantage.

You're not exactly speaking calmly here, so I don't know why you expect anyone to take your word as fact while not offering even questions in return.

 

I can only try to convey it this way-how calmly would you discuss having your guitars taken, perhaps by force, from you? Your car? Now add to that the belief some hold (including myself, by the way) the the second amendment is the guardian of the rest, and can you see why it gets heated? This may be 'a topic' for some, but for others it's a subject that's profoundly important. As much as I remind myself that my investment is out of proportion to other peoples' here, it gets difficult.

I will try to be more civil; it's true this works me up, but civility should not be a victim of high feeling.

And if you've ever used a neutered mag, you'd understand; you could play tunes all day with four strings, but the guitar wouldn't be 'right' that way, would it? Plus they never work correctly-they're an aberration.

[theAntihero]

 

 

 

 

 

If you can change mags so quickly why do you need extended mags for anything but competition? Sounds like mag limits aren't a big deal so fighting to keep high capacity mags makes me believe they carry some advantage.

 

 

 

 

Not having to change a magazine means there is less to go wrong in a stressful situation. Yes some will be able to change mags like nothing is happening but the majority of people will probably be shaking with adrenaline. If you are in a situation where you need to use deadly force to protect yourself or your family you really want every advantage you can get.

And "extended" mags are kind of a media buzzword in some cases. The Ar system has a 30rd magazine standard these days and most fullsize pistols where designed around having more than 10 rounds or at least all that use a double stack magazine. They arent "extended" so much a "stock".

 

 

 

 

 

You're not exactly speaking calmly here, so I don't know why you expect anyone to take your word as fact while not offering even questions in return.

 

 

 

 

You gotta cut people some slack, us gun owners are being told that we are all on the edge of mass murding rage and that we should give up thousands of dollars of our property because someone else did something wrong. The anti-gun crowd quite literally has nothing to lose in the argument so its not like we are on equal footing in this debate. How would you like it if you are told that you cant be trusted not to kill your neighbors and that we will be seizing something that you have devoted years to owning and using along with being worth several thousand dollars? Not to mention that you feel that the very thing that the other side is taking away is what makes you safe from bodily harm.

[Ron Burgandy]

 

Originally Posted by larryguitar

I can only try to convey it this way-how calmly would you discuss having your guitars taken, perhaps by force, from you? Your car? Now add to that the belief some hold (including myself, by the way) the the second amendment is the guardian of the rest, and can you see why it gets heated? This may be 'a topic' for some, but for others it's a subject that's profoundly important. As much as I remind myself that my investment is out of proportion to other peoples' here, it gets difficult.

I will try to be more civil; it's true this works me up, but civility should not be a victim of high feeling.

And if you've ever used a neutered mag, you'd understand; you could play tunes all day with four strings, but the guitar wouldn't be 'right' that way, would it? Plus they never work correctly-they're an aberration.

 

Dude, I have not in any way said you should have your guns taken away. By force, legislation, by repurchasing them,etc. I am not for gun bans, period. Gun regulation, yes but only to bring sales of firearms above the table.

Say for arguments sake that a fully functional mag is created. Would you still have a problem with bans on high capacity mags?

The reason I ask, so you know it's not a trap discussion, is that someone above mentioned it giving the shooter an advantage in that even a slight delay is an issue. In a bad situation I don't want the bad guy having that advantage.

[theAntihero]

 

Originally Posted by Ron Burgandy

Dude, I have not in any way said you should have your guns taken away. By force, legislation, by repurchasing them,etc. I am not for gun bans, period. Gun regulation, yes but only to bring sales of firearms above the table.

Say for arguments sake that a fully functional mag is created. Would you still have a problem with bans on high capacity mags?

The reason I ask, so you know it's not a trap discussion, is that someone above mentioned it giving the shooter an advantage in that even a slight delay is an issue. In a bad situation I don't want the bad guy having that advantage.

 

The problem with a law is that the only people that follow these laws are the good guys, so chances are the bad guy would still have a large magazine while to homeowner has a media friendly lower capacity.

Think of it as M.A.D(mutually assured destruction) no criminal will willing go against a well armed "target" when there is easier game about sort of like when predators take out the weakest of the pack.

[Ron Burgandy]

 

Originally Posted by theAntihero

Not having to change a magazine means there is less to go wrong in a stressful situation. Yes some will be able to change mags like nothing is happening but the majority of people will probably be shaking with adrenaline. If you are in a situation where you need to use deadly force to protect yourself or your family you really want every advantage you can get.

And "extended" mags are kind of a media buzzword in some cases. The Ar system has a 30rd magazine standard these days and most fullsize pistols where designed around having more than 10 rounds or at least all that use a double stack magazine. They arent "extended" so much a "stock".

You gotta cut people some slack, us gun owners are being told that we are all on the edge of mass murding rage and that we should give up thousands of dollars of our property because someone else did something wrong. The anti-gun crowd quite literally has nothing to lose in the argument so its not like we are on equal footing in this debate. How would you like it if you are told that you cant be trusted not to kill your neighbors and that we will be seizing something that you have devoted years to owning and using along with being worth several thousand dollars? Not to mention that you feel that the very thing that the other side is taking away is what makes you safe from bodily harm.

 

I haven't said that once. I used to own guns, including one of those scary black military style weapons. I disarmed myself because I no longer felt comfortable with them nor did I trust my predicted ability to use them in a time of distress. Having said that, it's MY problem which is why I got rid of MY guns. Knowing gun owners from my days in the shooting range I can say I know plenty of responsible gun owners and my own thoughts on ME keeping guns shouldn't stop YOU from owning guns. Conversely from that same time period I was amazed at how under the table everything was. I bought and sold an m4 and several handguns without even a background check or knowing the buyer's name.

Again, I'm not in any way saying we should disarm our citizens.

[theAntihero]

 

Originally Posted by Ron Burgandy

I haven't said that once. I used to own guns, including one of those scary black military style weapons. I disarmed myself because I no longer felt comfortable with them nor did I trust my predicted ability to use them in a time of distress. Having said that, it's MY problem which is why I got rid of MY guns. Knowing gun owners from my days in the shooting range I can say I know plenty of responsible gun owners and my own thoughts on ME keeping guns shouldn't stop YOU from owning guns. Conversely from that same time period I was amazed at how under the table everything was. I bought and sold an m4 and several handguns without even a background check or knowing the buyer's name.

Again, I'm not in any way saying we should disarm our citizens.

 

I wasnt necessarily saying that you feel this way, i was saying this is what we are getting from the anti-gun side. Its hard to hear the calmly spoken voice in a crowd of screaming people.

[Ron Burgandy]

 

Originally Posted by theAntihero

The problem with a law is that the only people that follow these laws are the good guys, so chances are the bad guy would still have a large magazine while to homeowner has a media friendly lower capacity.

Think of it as M.A.D(mutually assured destruction) no criminal will willing go against a well armed "target" when there is easier game about sort of like when predators take out the weakest of the pack.

 

I feel banning them would lessen the availability and over time we'd see a difference. Regardless, I also feel gun owners would refuse to turn them in if required and would become law breakers themselves. Why do gun owners feel they can break the law?

[Ron Burgandy]

 

Originally Posted by theAntihero

I wasnt necessarily saying that you feel this way, i was saying this is what we are getting from the anti-gun side. Its hard to hear the calmly spoken voice in a crowd of screaming people.

 

Which is why the anti gun advocates will cause you a world of irritation and headaches in the near future. Both sides refusing to be civil and both resorting to extremes to prove their point. Both extremes are so ridiculous that its easy to shake our heads at those that oppose us.

The NRA fighting to place armed volunteers in every school is a prime example. That kind of ridiculous response makes people think that gun owners aren't reasonable. You and I know they certainly can be in the majority of cases but the NRA is speaking for you to the media.

[theAntihero]

 

Originally Posted by Ron Burgandy

I feel banning them would lessen the availability and over time we'd see a difference. Regardless, I also feel gun owners would refuse to turn them in if required and would become law breakers themselves. Why do gun owners feel they can break the law?

 

Most dont, which is why it sort of sad that we get lumped in with the school shooters because of peoples rage.

We had 10 years of the AWB and it did basically nothing which is why it silly for this to be trotted out again. Im all for effective solutions but this one didnt work, why use it again?

[theAntihero]

 

Originally Posted by Ron Burgandy

Which is why the anti gun advocates will cause you a world of irritation and headaches in the near future. Both sides refusing to be civil and both resorting to extremes to prove their point. Both extremes are so ridiculous that its easy to shake our heads at those that oppose us.

The NRA fighting to place armed volunteers in every school is a prime example. That kind of ridiculous response makes people think that gun owners aren't reasonable. You and I know they certainly can be in the majority of cases but the NRA is speaking for you to the media.

 

Oh, i agree to a certain extent. I live where there are a whole bunch of people who hate the "guvbberment" and think that they can take down said entity with 10,000 rounds and their ww2 rifle so i know that side as well.

I dont necessarily feel that armed police in schools is such a terrible idea, we have them walking the streets to prevent such things anyway, but im astounded at how people have reacted to this idea.

[newholland]

antihero- thanks for responding civilly.. i do know that 30.06es range is miles, and that bolt actions didn't exist when the constitution was framed- but single shot rifles were the norm. i'm not a gun guy-- but i am aware of guns having family with them and having received early on training about how to respect them.

all that said-- yup.. both sides squabble like children, and are filled with misinformation from a multitude of voices, and it makes people prone to call things things they're not. gun owners are HARDLY all crazies. i've met a few-- but most of them are respectful careful people who know what guns do. there's also silly crazies who treat 'em like toys and rattle off shells for {censored}s and grins. there's plenty of nutty pacifists believing that the world is super unsafe and chakra meditation is gonna fix alongside eating enough bean sprouts. they're also {censored}ing crazy.

both sides need to realize there's a sane capacity in the other, and both need to realize the value of not digging in their heels. i really dunno where this crazy 'stay the course' right into the iceberg mentality comes from (not accusing you of that AH!). civil people don't have to come to blows EVERY time there's a big problem to deal with- and i've never stated ANY wish to take guns from anybody. i just wonder what exactly the trajectory is gonna be, because if people are percieving guns like they do DDT--- created for the good, which turned out to be bad for a lot of things-- it goes away.

currently, that seems to be the prevailing sentiment-- and i think the head of the NRA really {censored}ed up when he started talking about armed guards in every grade school.. it really does seem a little crazy to most people.. and just looks like advocating more guns to prevent more gun violence. mutually assured destruction kinda went out with the cold war in the minds of most. i'm not baiting you-- just saying, that's what most folks i know think, having HAD this discussion.

[larryguitar]

Everybody seems to hate the idea of armed guards in schools, but what are all the proposed bans, limits, whatever going to do to prevent this from happening TOMORROW? Nothing. That's the point he was addressing-what will we do NOW to save our kids?

There should be lots and lots of talk about the IMMEDIATE things we can do, since the copy-cats won't wait; why aren't we talking about mandatory CCTV on doors, mag-locks with auto lock-down capabilities, compartmentalization hallways in schools? Because it's not as easy as saying, 'ban guns'? Much of it would work today, or perhaps next week-so why aren't we talking about that.

You can rip on LaPierre all you want-he's not my hero, personally-but what he proposed has the small advantage of actually possibly working, and working soon, unlike anything I've heard anyone else suggest.

[larryguitar]

 

Originally Posted by Ron Burgandy

Which is why the anti gun advocates will cause you a world of irritation and headaches in the near future. Both sides refusing to be civil and both resorting to extremes to prove their point. Both extremes are so ridiculous that its easy to shake our heads at those that oppose us.

The NRA fighting to place armed volunteers in every school is a prime example. That kind of ridiculous response makes people think that gun owners aren't reasonable. You and I know they certainly can be in the majority of cases but the NRA is speaking for you to the media.

 

One issue with 'compromise' is that many who are suggesting it have already declared that their end-goal is complete firearms prohibition. You want to dig someone's heels in, that's the best way to do it; talk to me about 'reasonable compromise' on firearms legislation that is not simply a discussion of what rights will get taken away, or what items/features/weapons will be banned, and I might listen.

But 'compromise' indicates movement on BOTH sides, not simply one side giving way to a lesser or greater extent. You want to ban full-cap magazines? What will gun owners get in return? You want to register guns? What's in it for me?

The grabbers/regulators talk about compromise, but actually mean 'negotiated loss.' Who in their right mind would bargain with someone like that? Where's my incentive to give up anything, since I know full well (and history has clearly shown) that no 'compromise' will ever be the last....

[Stevetemp]

 

Originally Posted by newholland

yep, but the main difference is ASKING why there's a percieved need isn't telling anybody what they can't do- it's parsing out motivation. i've already stated i don't see a need for 'em personally, and i won't apologize for not believing in military weapons for civilians. but i'm certainly not perpetuating any 'myth' that a one second google search doesn't confirm- people buy saigas cause they're easy conversions, and you'd be pretty bummed to do such a thing and crank off the standard 10 clip in 2 seconds.

that's just a reality, and denying it isn't doing anything either.

larry made a good point earlier, saying that tobacco and alcohol fall under the same loose heading. true enough-- they're 'dangerous', and as such, ought to be talked about in the same way-- if it'll kill you or others.. well.. it's worth a conversation at least.

is there a tipping point where irresponsible gun ownership outweighs responsible gun ownership? i hope to not find out. but i also hope i'm not coming across like i'm being the token anti gun liberal, 'cause i'm certainly not trying to. if that's the perception, i'm glad to be the sacrificial lamb to start the conversation-- but i'll say it ain't so, despite having an opinion in the matter.

 

Yes....actually alcohol is a great point. Though I am not sure about tobacco. Alcohol, in moderation and responsible use kills no one. And yet...when people drink and perform violence or DUI fatalities....we don't run for alcohol ban, right? Why is that?

The only reason I get is that "alcohol wasn't designed to kill". And I say So? The end result matters very little to victims and families. It could have been prevented if we ban alcohol.

Same with automobiles. Apparently it's my lame-brained idea that this is part of the accepted risk of our society. DO we as humans need automobiles, alcohol and tobacco to survive? Is it truly a NEED to just live? I argue that no, it isn't. BUT! In the society we have made...you could argue sure! it's important to our freedoms, convenience, and pursuit of happiness. And deaths that result in the activity are an (apparent) acceptable risk. I say "apparently" because it appears we don't like to think of it that way. What else it is, I have NO idea.

And so...I believe guns are on this list as well. Things that...used irresponsibly or criminally...DO KILL. It's not the thing that does the killing though, mkay?

Sorry if you felt you were unfairly e-beat up. You have to understand how it looks from over here.

 

what exactly could you 'need' that thing to do?

just asking. are you being attacked by 30 deer at once? is there routine home invasions at your place?

 

If you think that looks ENTIRELY lil ol innocent, I'll just have to disagree. And leave it at that.

Hope you have a great rest-of-holidays, newholland.

And HNGD Abstract!

[Stevetemp]

 

Originally Posted by Ron Burgandy

I feel banning them would lessen the availability and over time we'd see a difference. Regardless, I also feel gun owners would refuse to turn them in if required and would become law breakers themselves. Why do gun owners feel they can break the law?

 

Wow...that's a loaded question sheesh! Disingenuous too.

Back when Ohio changed the drinking age to 21...I had already turned 18. But we all thought it was bull{censored}. We had friends signing up for military service...to fight and die for country, yet can't have a beer. A BULL{censored} law. And I guess some of my younger friends became outlaws hmmm?

Your question should be...why do HUMANS feel they can break the law.

[newholland]

 

Originally Posted by Stevetemp

Yes....actually alcohol is a great point. Though I am not sure about tobacco. Alcohol, in moderation and responsible use kills no one. And yet...when people drink and perform violence or DUI fatalities....we don't run for alcohol ban, right? Why is that?

The only reason I get is that "alcohol wasn't designed to kill". And I say So? The end result matters very little to victims and families. It could have been prevented if we ban alcohol.

Same with automobiles. Apparently it's my lame-brained idea that this is part of the accepted risk of our society. DO we as humans need automobiles, alcohol and tobacco to survive? Is it truly a NEED to just live? I argue that no, it isn't. BUT! In the society we have made...you could argue sure! it's important to our freedoms, convenience, and pursuit of happiness. And deaths that result in the activity are an (apparent) acceptable risk. I say "apparently" because it appears we don't like to think of it that way. What else it is, I have NO idea.

And so...I believe guns are on this list as well. Things that...used irresponsibly or criminally...DO KILL. It's not the thing that does the killing though, mkay?

Sorry if you felt you were unfairly e-beat up. You have to understand how it looks from over here.

If you think that looks ENTIRELY lil ol innocent, I'll just have to disagree. And leave it at that.

Hope you have a great rest-of-holidays, newholland.

And HNGD Abstract!

 

message received and appreciated, steve.

nope-- it's certainly not the guns by themselves, and its certainly not responsible people. never has been-- i know my family's never killed anyone with their rifles, and all the boys in the family were taught that you never ever point a gun- loaded or not- at a human unless you plan on killing them. god help you if you did otherwise.

i know.. i can be a snarky bitch-- but seriously, not trying to elicit a {censored}storm about guns, per se. i'm always glad to start a {censored}storm about cultural values though. that stuff is fascinating, and the intersection of want/need is a really crazy crossroads that creates a LOT of fury in our culture. ultimately- it cracks a lotta cans of worms-- like what're people willing to give up, or what're they willing to accept as necessity.

in the end-- sure i'll battle back- i believe what i believe too. but i don't feel e-beat up-- {censored}.. i'm HCAF trained. if i'm gonna dish, i'd better know how to take it. its our damn country though-- we'd better figure OUT how to hash out problems and not kill each other or we're pissing up a rope, right?

happy holidays, sir. and thanks for that.

[Brick]

Personally, everyone is still reeling from the senseless murders of a host of children for no apparent reason which has caused a lot of gun owners (me personally, I own a bolt action btw) to be personally attacked for owning. I use it for home defense (heaven forbid), target shooting, plinking, and hunting for smaller varmints. None of which is illegal nor have I ever once considered using my weapon to hurt anyone. Things like this school shooting should be prevented and after the AWB of 1994 did essentially nothing to curb the amount of weapons, I'm beyond skeptical of another ban being the cure. Ways we look at school security, diagnosing mental disabilities, the way weapons are stored when others have access to the premises are all much more pertinent issues that I think could help much more in the short and long run before stomping on constitutionally guaranteed rights.

As for the whole 30rd magazine arguments...The standard AR comes with a 30rd magazine stock, it's what is designed for the gun. Sometimes with other magazines there can be issues with the round feeding correctly among a couple of other smaller issues. When it comes down to competitions, larger magazines are required, with many points at risk, reloading an extra two times can cause the shooter to lose precious seconds. Now in a school shooting situation, if a shooter is limited to 10 rd magazines, two extra reloads do very little to slow a shooter down especially when there is no one to stand up to them. Seconds count in shooting competitions and home defense situations, not when there is one man locked in a school with defenseless children.

Gun owners become nervous when the mainstream media and President start discussing banning certain things within the sport. It becomes a slippery slope. While a ten round magazine cap would be a pain in the ass at the range and potentially detrimental to home defense situations, it wouldn't effect a portion of gun owners terribly, but where does it stop? Are different stocks now illegal? What about certain scopes or bi-pods or the length of barrels? Banning some parts can set precedent for the future of banning of other things that aren't dangerous but are demonized.

Finally, the majority of this "ban" talk comes from people who are ignorant about guns. And I don't mean ignorant in a negative way, they just don't have experience with them and jump to conclusions, especially when these conclusions are rammed down their throats by most media. Gun owners are just as shaken up by the shooting as the rest of America, but we understand how guns work and we understand that if there's a will, there's a way. We're comfortable with the tool so our first thought isn't to ban them. For many people there experience with guns ends when they turn off their TV, and we all know how accurate TV and movies are.

[~Abstract~]

So a long day at the new office and I didn't get a chance to get in on this. Damn.

OK...thanks for all the HNGD's.

What do I need it for? ....."All legal purposes".....thank you very much.

chief among them...punching holes in paper. Anyone who's loaded many mags in their life can tell you, the fewer times you load a mag, the happier your thumb is.

Also...something to think about...

The cornerstone of American Justice is the presumption of innocence.

[Stevetemp]

 

Originally Posted by Brick

Personally, everyone is still reeling from the senseless murders of a host of children for no apparent reason which has caused a lot of gun owners (me personally, I own a bolt action btw)

Snipped for space....

 

Wow Brick...an excellent post. Really should be in a syndicate column (better than most op-ed!). You show intelligence, compassion and clarity. We are in desperate need of this these days.