Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

[GNTLGNT]

1. REAL men hunt with a bow.
1. REAL hunters are hunting for meat/fur etc. It's best not to masticate the animal in the process.

...well, first off-I prefer to masticate mine after they've been bagged, secondly-depending on where the "Real" man hits it with the broadhead, it can still pulverize certain anatomical "delicacies", thus spoiling the meat...and third, do not presume to declare me less than a man because when I hunt I use a shotgun, handgun or rifle AND respect the areas and environment where I stalk...each "discipline" including bow, crossbow and muzzle-loader has it's own special skill levels, but just because I use a bullet rather than a razor tipped projectile, doe NOT diminish my manhood, thank you...

[exzel]

It always shocks me when me people so fearful of the government post about their rights to "bear arms" to defend themselves against their government. I think it's an excuse.

Hmmm… What if George W. Bush had promised to create a “civilian national security force” as big and as strong at the Defense Department, claiming “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Then having his Department of Homeland Security, not the Defense Department, start to stock firearms and ammo. And look to purchase up to 7,000 “select fire” true “assault weapons,” capable of semi-automatic and automatic fire, equipped with high-capacity 30-round magazines… claiming they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” And stockpiling 2 billion of rounds of ammunition (mostly hollow points nonetheless), capable of killing every US citizen 6 times over. By Homeland Security… not the Defense Department. And then not allowing the people to know what the budget is for all of this because Congress had stopped passing budgets when he took office. Also, under his leadership, Congress passing a bill that removes the concept of habeas corpus (essentially enacting legislation that authorizes the president to have American citizens arrested and indefinitely detained without charge or trial.)

But George W Bush didn’t do that… so, no worries, eh?

But wouldn’t this kind of thing, if it actually happened , possibly be something the founding fathers might have been concerned with when they put the second amendment into the Bill of Rights?

[jay1799]

Jay, you present some very good arguments in most of your posts--arguments that others may disagree with, but still, they're good arguments. But--again, in most of your posts--you sabotage yourself by presenting the indefensible. Golf clubs and lighting? Thirty-round clips? Cannons?

Really?

I'd stick to what can be legitimately defended, and leave out the hyperbole and outlandish analogies.

As far as 30 round magazines. I think they are perfectly defensible, from many sides.

I dont see why someone else should be telling me what the best way is to defend myself, my family and my property. That is it. Bottom line. I am not telling anyone else they have to own them. Just dont tell me I cant to defend myself with one. It should make no difference to anyone else how I defend myself. The only ones that should care are those that want to do me harm. And those are the bad guys.

And where does it stop? You say 30 today is too much. Then it is 20. Then it is 10. Then it is seven.(this is the new law in NY, which I am hoping gets shot down in the lower courts or by SCOTUS eventually) Where does it stop? When we are all using double barreled shotguns again(that is what Joe Biden thinks) It is simply a way to keep limiting firearms until they can limit them into non existence. You either believe 2A is a right, with all the protections a right comes with...or you dont think it is a right. I believe it is a right, and I will defend the right for anyone that is not a criminal nor mentally insane..to own such a device. Heck, it is a piece of metal or plastic. They can even be made in someones home if they own a 3D printer....or a criminals home if they own a 3d printer. A ban on them is not going to stop the criminals from having them. Just the good guys.

Heck, many of the most common handguns(which again, are fully backed by SCOTUS) use magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Most modern semi automatic handguns hold between 12-20 rounds in their mag. That is for a handgun. A rifle? That is quite different.

I will agree with everything you said, except that 30 round magazines are somehow indefensible. The rest was me just going with the flow of the thread. ie, where it took me. Although, I thought the golf clubs and lightning was funny. As it showed how silly it is to ban something. And it simply came up as a comparison to how often mass shootings occur. Spreading fear of mass shootings would be like spreading fear of lightning strikes. However, it is not something I normally would argue. It is not like I am operating off a script here(although I am sure some believe I am). I am simply responding to things in the thread and seeing where it goes. /shrug

But thanks for at least being pretty open minded in the discussion.

[hossenpepper]

...Hoss, as the legendary Foghorn Leghorn would say...

“That, I say that boy’s just like a tatoo, gets under your skin”

Damn you Giant, you made laugh. I was trying not to flinch here...

[Sepia and Dust]

As far as 30 round magazines.

Just another gun nut. No point in talking to you.

[hossenpepper]

I agree.

The time has come.

It is about time we fix our sad and lacking mental Heath systems in this country. It is a despicable that people don't want to fix and underlying cause of violence in our society, that is so evident by this shooting.

Cool you think that. I assume you are very supportive of "Obamacare" then? The new emphasis on mental health has shown in my new insurance which has no limits and is $0 copay for services. I am not sure if it can fix a smarmy little kid like you that hasn't the faintest clue of which he speaks, yet continues to dig his own holes.

We should also look at beefing up security. Heck, the folks at newtown now realize that. They made the decision to add armed resource officers at their schools finally. Maybe it is about time the rest of the nation gets on board. It's not like it is a new thought. Roughly a third to 50% of schools in this country already do it. Isn't it about time the rest of the country decides to protect our most precious resources? What kind of person would be against security at our schools?
http://www.countytimes.com/articles/2013/02/01/news/doc510bbacf65d00443529729.txt

WELL, SOMEONE LIKE YOU OF COURSE!!!! Isn't the need to defend against the "aw-thur-i-tyes" (said in the best Cartman voice possible) a fundamental point in your 2nd amendment interpretation? Yet you want MORE government sponsored presence in public places? Wouldn't that make it easier for them to take over?

[exzel]

I’m not an expert (nor do I own any rifle other than a rare and mint WWII Japanese Navy Type I bolt action rifle manufactured by Beretta), but if they outlaw magazines over 10 rounds, but don’t outlaw each and every semi-automatic rifle, wouldn’t it be rather easy to just tape two or three magazines together “jungle style” with a simple piece of duct tape, turning it into a pseudo 20 or 30 round mag, and still be compliant with the law? Or would that 3-5 seconds needed to reverse the mag make all the difference in the world? Just askin'

[jay1799]

Just another gun nut. No point in talking to you.

Would you call someone that defends an authors Right to write violent fiction(and I am not speaking of king here) as just another free speech nut?

How about hate speech. I personally find it deplorable. But I will defend a persons right to say what they want.

When I donate to the ACLU, and they defend some hate group spewing ugly things over the airwaves or while standing alongside the road. Am I an ACLU loving free speech nut??

[Sepia and Dust]

Would you call someone that defends an authors Right to write violent fiction(and I am not speaking of king here) as just another free speech nut?

How about hate speech. I personally find it deplorable. But I will defend a persons right to say what they want.

When I donate to the ACLU, and they defend some hate group spewing ugly things over the airwaves or while standing alongside the road. Am I an ACLU loving free speech nut??

I'd call someone who makes a point to differentiate between a magazine and a clip in an informal conversation "pedantic".

[jay1799]

I’m not an expert (nor do I own any rifle other than a rare and mint WWII Japanese Navy Type I bolt action rifle manufactured by Beretta), but if they outlaw magazines over 10 rounds, but don’t outlaw each and every semi-automatic rifle, wouldn’t it be rather easy to just tape two or three magazines together “jungle style” with a simple piece of duct tape, turning it into a pseudo 20 or 30 round mag, and still be compliant with the law? Or would that 3-5 seconds needed to reverse the mag make all the difference in the world? Just askin'

I dont know. I would say it would still be complaint with the law.

Here is something for all those saying I am a 'gun nut'

I dont even own an AR15. I have other semi auto rifles. Some that have detachable magazines, which can hold more than 10 rounds. But an AR15, which is THE gun everyone seems to think needs to go away and I am defending....I dont own. Never have. /shrug