Obama's speech

[ksholder]

That is just internet denizens sounding off, stupidly. I don't think that rhetoric represents the views or methods of the organized
anti-gun advocates who are truly in positions to harm the rights of gun owners.

We get our share of stupid stuff posted here, as do all open forums and discussion forums.

Hop - I agree, just stupid morons sounding off. The problem here is that when conservative stupid morons sound off (yes they do exist), they are not known for making threats and following through. Liberal stupid morons are, unfortunately, prone to making threats, like the ones here, and following through or inciting even more stupid moronic minions to so do. Therefore, I think at least the leaders of NRA should be on high alert.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Okemo]

What are we going to do... I feel helpless.

I think the Don said it best...

[Bark'n]

Fixed it for ya Okemo.

[norb5150]

The reports as to what happened in Conn. changed every day. First reports were the hand guns were used and the AR was in the trunk. Now those reports have been removed and the story changed. The person Buzzed his way into the school then started to carry out his actions. Then reports that the person believed to be responsible for this shot his way into the school with the AR. Lets stop right there. An AR is a very loud easily determinable sound. It would have taken many shots to shoot through and by then people inside would have been able to prepare. Why was this person able to shoot his way in before the police got there? Something is being covered up and changed here folks. Yes it was a tragedy. Yes it is uncalled for violence. But to immediatly attack gun owners? To change the story multiple times? The media is the headline of this attack on the free people. Why hasnt the NRA spoke? Because they cant even begin to decifer what is going on. And they know the media is bias. This is an all out attack on our individual freedoms one at a time. The media and the ones who want to enslave us are heading the effort.

[zamboni]

We may never really know what firearms he used or how he got in or any other true details surrounding this horrid event.

Out of all the stream of information that has been flowing forth so far. Some has been corrected and revised, some has been taken out of context, some their telling what they want us to hear how they want us to hear it, they may revise some because in the media's blood thirst obligation to their producers desires as if it bleeds it leads mentality, they release info but then they revise it because maybe do to a possible agenda priority they revise it to fit their main interest alliances, the media has been picking and choosing what they feed us because they feel it is in some interest groups best interest or it is what matches their personal believes < don't think so just put Costas on-air and now listen to some of the other talking heads > or of their producers personal believes.

What has happened to the media's code of ethics? Just report the story as a "non-bias fly on the wall" and let the public form their own opinions.

People, organization, and those who are in control with agendas, can and will only tell what they feel is only in their agendas best interest and sometimes; it isn't the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, nor is it always the full story.

Case in point: First they reported that they found an AR style rifle in the trunk of the car and only two handguns were used and no rifles. Then they said that he did use an AR. Then they back peddled a third time and said no he didn't use any rifles just three.....no four.....no two handguns and a rifle????? The victims were all shot once....no three times......no wait I'm being told ten?

When they pulled a moving van up on scene and started removing tables and chairs the students used the media wanted to....no demanded to know what they were doing and how is this going to add in their investigation? Where these riddled with bullet holes so they needed them to compare to something?

Duh......no! They were moving them to another school so they could accommodate transferring the students there. Relax media goons!!

So which report do we believe Ripley?

[HotGuns]

So which report do we believe Ripley?

None of them. They are all incompetent buffoons that have a propensity to embellish, change,distort or downright lie about the truth.

[Miamieddie]

My thought on this you ask..... MAD!!! ... what i need to know is if they ban our guns will they give us the value of the gun for what its worth (like a blue book on cars) or will they just take all our guns and its just our lost period?? ... Eddie.

[Clodbert]

Before the federal government starts looking at high-capacity magazine bans, assault weapons bans, and other restrictions, shouldn't they first pore over the data on restrictive gun legislation, firearm ownership, and incidences of violent gun-related crime? I'm sure there's plenty of data readily available from other sovereign states such as Canada and the United Kingdom. Before we just blindly assume that lower violent gun crime rates are associated with less legally-owned firearms, I think our politicians would be wise to first examine all the data to make sure that this gun control idea actually works.

I just think jumping to conclusions and drawing up new restrictive legislation is premature. I personally haven't researched this but I can speculate that some of you guys have. What can we glean from the data on gun control and violent gun crime? Is it clear or ambiguous? Is it unanimous or split? Can we even draw inferences from it?

[Simonsay]

I'm sure there's plenty of data readily available ... I think our politicians would be wise to examine to first examine all the data to make sure that this gun control idea actually works.

DUDE... Stop it, you're killing me. I can't quit laughing. I'm serious. That there is golden sarcasm

[Lotus222]

Yup, because if we don't accede to this we will get far far far worse.
Earlier someone suggested trading capacity for national reciprocity. IMO, deal.

Appeasement at every instance until you have nothing. That is how these things work. Instances throughout history back this truth indefinitely. Its almost like you forget that citizens have the right not the privilege. First it will be magazines. Then semi-auto weapons. Then handguns altogether. Then "high powered" (center fire) rifles. Then shotguns. We will eventually be stuck with single-shot .22 rimfire rifles. Then nothing. This oligarchy government gets more totalitarian every single day. Laws like this do nothing but strip power from the people and add it to big brother. Perpetually.

[Hopyard]

No offense mate, but you are starting to sound like Chamberlain. That worked well - or not.

No offense taken, but everyone comes at this from their own viewpoint, wants, and needs. I want and need national reciprocity one heck of a lot more than I want or need high caps--- which I don't. I'm looking for some sort of win win instead of
what may well turn out to be a big huge stinking lose it all event either in Congress or at the Supremes.

Limiting magazine capacity IMO isn't an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, whereas not having
national reciprocity actually is an infringement on that right; a very real infringement. So I see trading something trivial (high cap) for something worthwhile (full national reciprocity) as a pretty darn good deal for the concealed carry community.

Heck, we don't conceal carry 30 rounders; they won't fit IWB, in an ankle holster, or in a shoulder holster. Instead if we feel the need we carry an extra mag or an extra gun or both. So from the point of view of concealed carry and defensive carry of handguns, giving up high cap is a big nothing. I'll trade a big nothing for something any time.

[Simonsay]

Limiting magazine capacity IMO isn't an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, whereas not having
national reciprocity actually is an infringement on that right; a very real infringement. So I see trading something trivial (high cap) for something worthwhile (full national reciprocity) as a pretty darn good deal for the concealed carry community.

Heck, we don't conceal carry 30 rounders; they won't fit IWB, in an ankle holster, or in a shoulder holster. Instead if we feel the need we carry an extra mag or an extra gun or both. So from the point of view of concealed carry and defensive carry of handguns, giving up high cap is a big nothing. I'll trade a big nothing for something any time.

Again, giving up high cap means nothing to you, so you are OK to lose it. I'm guessing you're OK with losing long range bolt guns and short barrelled shotguns too? Why not just get rid of anything "semi", since a 5 shot snubbie is adequate for SD? Let me know when I hit a nerve.

Give it all up and it's not going to change crime or the criminals. That's the idiotic part of your argument. It won't change anything. If you are going to the table with a concession, at least have something of benefit. Some people have offered viable solutions, yet you continue to hound this trail.

[bmcgilvray]

"So from the point of view of concealed carry and defensive carry of handguns, giving up high cap is a big nothing. I'll trade a big nothing for something any time."


Thanks for volunteering for me to give up my high-capacity magazines. I don't actually use them often or even consider them as an integral part of my overall shooting interests however I do enjoy the right to have them on hand just as I enjoy owning a vehicle with way more horsepower than is necessary for my daily travels.


"Limiting magazine capacity IMO isn't an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms..."


Magazine capacity restrictions undeniably limit the citizen's right to keep and bear effective arms. Effective that is in 21st century terms rather than in late 18th century terms. That hypothetical .22 single shot that keeps showing up, here in this and other threads, is a firearm but few here would be willing to be restricted to only such arms. Just how much restriction must we bear and how much is inflicted by the views of fellow firearms owners who are only too willing to trade out what is not important to them? One has to ask himself if he'd be annoyed with the owner of nothing more than a .22 single shot rifle being willing to give up the right to own any form of repeating arm simply because repeating firearms were not important to him. "It's not important to me" is a monstrous cop-out!

You don't care about high-capacity magazines and desire national reciprocity? I live in Texas and typically don't travel in states that won't allow my concealed carry permit. I'm less concerned about national reciprocity but greatly concerned about the real underlying motives of a government that wants my high-capacity magazines. I find it disconcerting that other gun owners are willing to give in on facets of firearms ownership that they deem trivial.

Anyway, there's no particular effort afoot to make a swap of curtailment of high-capacity magazines for national reciprocity, so such a trade-out is only wishful thinking on the part of some. A trade-out that, given the defeatist attitude exhibited by some here on the Forum, could very well turn to be giving in on something to get a big, fat, nothing in return!

[9MMare]

No offense taken, but everyone comes at this from their own viewpoint, wants, and needs. I want and need national reciprocity one heck of a lot more than I want or need high caps--- which I don't. I'm looking for some sort of win win instead of
what may well turn out to be a big huge stinking lose it all event either in Congress or at the Supremes.

Limiting magazine capacity IMO isn't an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, whereas not having
national reciprocity actually is an infringement on that right; a very real infringement. So I see trading something trivial (high cap) for something worthwhile (full national reciprocity) as a pretty darn good deal for the concealed carry community.

Heck, we don't conceal carry 30 rounders; they won't fit IWB, in an ankle holster, or in a shoulder holster. Instead if we feel the need we carry an extra mag or an extra gun or both. So from the point of view of concealed carry and defensive carry of handguns, giving up high cap is a big nothing. I'll trade a big nothing for something any time.

Thnak you for this perspective. I am not in complete agreement but you make good points.

For me, it's not about what I want or need....I dont need hi-cap mags or an AR..but I feel the need to defend the right to keep them. That any steps back lead down that 'slippery slope.'

[ksholder]

Limiting magazine capacity IMO isn't an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, whereas not having national reciprocity actually is an infringement on that right; a very real infringement. So I see trading something trivial (high cap) for something worthwhile (full national reciprocity) as a pretty darn good deal for the concealed carry community.

You may not see them as a restriction right up to the time you have a HIR with 5 perps or you get caught in a flash mob event with a dozen miscreants trying to kick your head in. Then you just might want more than 5 or 10 rounds on tap. Just sayin.

Heck, we don't conceal carry 30 rounders; they won't fit IWB, in an ankle holster, or in a shoulder holster. Instead if we feel the need we carry an extra mag or an extra gun or both. So from the point of view of concealed carry and defensive carry of handguns, giving up high cap is a big nothing. I'll trade a big nothing for something any time.

You must have skinny ankles - JK. Where the 30/33 rounders come in handy is for HD. I agree we probably can't CC them, but for that HIR, they could save the day. They fit well in a nightstand drawer if they fit a handgun.