Semi-auto firearms have been around since 1885. Blow backs since about 1903. And 1911's well...since 1911.
So what these anti's are calling automatic firearms to gain agenda momentum, which are correctly semi-automatic's, have been around for almost 128-yrs!
The way the media, the Brady Bunch, the anti's, and politicians are parading these poor traumatized victims around is becoming intrusive too their privacy, intensifying their grief, and disrespectful to those whom have lost their lives. Their new slogan has become: "We must do more to protect out children."
Well then back off and stop taking advantage of their dramatic endings and respect the parents and let them mourn and grieve in peace already.
No sane person would disagree how horrid and unimaginable this was and is. Let these poor folks have some privacy already! Out of all the people that spoke at the TELEVISED service yesterday. Out of all the only eulogies, the only one that had any political statements was......Obama's. He couldn't just stay on subject and give a comforting eulogy? He couldn't just try to simply comfort those in sorrow?
No he had to take advantage of these poor people, and stir our emotions towards HIS political agenda.
There's no telling what's going to happen because of the way the Brady Bunch are over publishing this dreadful event.
Now the media is about to intrude on their sorrow and turn these funerals into a media circus event? This isn't the Superbowl media moguls! Let these poor people morn in PEACE!!! We get it, it is a tragic loss! Involving senseless death! Let these people be!
A Fox News commutator said: "Now it is important to concentrate on our DRAMATIC COVERAGE of the funerals of these victims in the most respectful way possible." Well that would be to simply BACK OFF ALREADY and let their survivors; Mothers, Fathers, Siblings, Grandparents, Classmates, Etc, mourn in PRIVATE!
Case in point....Michael Jackson's family didn't allow any media in but the media became so insensitive to respect their privacy they hovered overhead in helicopters?
Stop turning this morbid event into an media circus!!
But then the media is so blood thirsty as there motto speaks volumes....... If It Bleeds It Leads
Well all I can say is I'm glad I got my AR order in this weekend. Now seems like a good time to get on the mags too while they're still available because that's likely to become the first thing we see go bye-bye. I've been planning on purchasing an AR for months. But after what happened Friday and the discussion I've already witnessed I realized that I better do it before it's too late, although I'm doubtful we'll see an all-out ban on rifles. If anything it's the 30 round mags we need to jump on right now.
Originally Posted by llmstratocaster
Why? Would your world really and truly come to an end if you couldn't have a 30 round magazine but could have
Would your world come to an end if the gun stores didn't sell rifles decked out to look like battle rifles but
which functioned the same way--- so at least a few of the crazies wouldn't have something visually feeding their
Our forum title is defensive carry. Over the weekend I shot 100 rounds through a 229 and another 100 through
an LCP. The 229 had a 13 round mag. I wasn't the least bit unhappy that it didn't take 30. And as far as day to day carry
as a non-LEO, I wouldn't feel my manhood threatened by carrying an LCP. I am fairly sure that when I first
got my CHL the AWB was in place and the mag limit on the G17 and G 19 was 10. (Could be wrong, but that
is my recall of it now.) Anyone then carrying a G19 for SD wasn't under gunned by any means.
So now let's turn to the rifle used as it seems that is what Lanza used for all but his suicide.
Honestly, what on earth do you need a 30 rounder for?
We read lots of posts here from people complaining about others who are described as the "me" generation;
people who think only of their own wants and needs. How about the need of all of us to never ever have to face
someone with that sort of fire power? Enough of the me me me me me mes.
There is going to have to be some compromise and if we *folks at the NRA or GAO or JFPO* don't propose
it, whatever comes will be far worse on all of us.
Those Congress critters in The House, on the Republican side, all know in their hearts that what
happened to Giffords could just as easily have happened to them. That they are vulnerable, each and every
member, at each and every town hall meeting. And while I don't agree with many of their positions on all manner
of things, I want them safe. I want everyone safe.
Yes, gun control doesn't work very well, but we have gone over the top in a few areas.
I know a 2nd grade teacher. She is spending today learning emergency drills. [sarcasm] How wonderful
for our kids [/sarcasm] I can't use the language I would like to at this point.
I don't disagree with you Hopyard, but do you think they (the left anti-s) will be happy with that? I don't.
I have an idea. How about we stop pretending that that there's a difference between 10/10round mags or 2/50 round mags or 1/100 round mag, wanting to accept more freedoms lost due to the psychosis of another, whom by the way broke the law, and start looking at the real problem. :dunno:
I hope you're kidding. If you think that 10 round mags and wood stock rifles will make us safer, I'm sorry, but the numbers just don't help you out. Compromise got us where we are. This BS about giving the left a bone never works because they don't stop there.
Originally Posted by Hopyard
He never said a thing about "safer". He said, in so many words, that your life would hardly suffer because you had to change mags twice as often when plinking at the range.
Originally Posted by Simonsay
The shooter in Connecticut shot each of his victims 3 - 11 times EACH, Hopyard.
Had he been limited to shooting them only 3-10 times each because he used a "AWB legal" mag... would they have been any less dead?
Just as chrome does not make an automobile more efficient, speedy, or necessarily better looking, Black plastic furniture makes no weapon more deadly, tactical, accurate, or sinister.
Regulating inanimate objects is not the answer... It only appeases emotions, and serves no real purpose, providing no real solution to the problem such regulations are supposed to address.
As to teachers spending the day going over security drills... It's unfortunate but true, evil is loose in the world, and we must prepare to defend against it, whether it takes the form of an accidental fire, or intentional wanton mayhem.
You certainly stop no evil by ignoring it... and blaming the tools it chooses to use.
Strike while the irons hot. If you allow the memory, outrage, fear to grow cold they will not get the bill passed into law.
Originally Posted by MJK
Hop - I agree that I have had enough of the me generation too, but that misses the point. The 2A states "shall not be infringed". If you (general you, not personal you) don't like the 2A, change it. The Constitution says if you can convince 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures, it is changed. I may not like the result of an amendment drive, but that is the process. Making willy nilly changes without changing the empowering document is, quite simply, unconstitutional.
Originally Posted by Hopyard
Yes I realize we have the SCOTUS that is supposed to apply the constitution, however, in many cases they do not apply it but rather rewrite it.
Separate issue - Have any of our tax gurus looked at whether the catastrophe loss rules apply to property confiscated by fiat?
No, but politics is the art of the compromise. And that applies to both sides. I am certain there are
Originally Posted by Ksgunner
some on the gun hating side of the debate who will accept no compromise; not even a j frame in 22 Magnum.
There is a huge amount of territory where perhaps common ground can not be reached but some sort of uneasy
and unsatisfactory compromise can be reached so we can move on as a society.
And if we don't do it (compromise), I tell you honestly I think our Supremes are going to rule that there is no right
to carry for SD. I think several of the "conservative" Supremes are NOT pro-gun people, even the ones
who have gone hunting. Had they wanted to state that right to carry they had ample opportunity to do it within
the Heller ruling.
We could go back and argue Marbury v Madison, but bottom line is the Supremes get to say what stuff means.
Originally Posted by ksholder
I didn't much like what they said in Heller because they didn't protect a right to carry. If we gun owners and CHL
folk remain stubbornly purist, they (the Supremes not Congress and not the Executive) will pull the whole rug from under us. I don't think there is one of them
who is where you, or possibly I, are on this whole issue.
I don't know what your other issue/question was a reference to.
Had he been forced to reload again and again and again and again, there is a chance he might have been stopped before
Originally Posted by oakchas
it got so horrifically horrendous. (Of course even 1 casualty is horrifically horrendous, but I'm getting at what enabled the carnage.)
Uhm, I wasn't competing in USPSA during the Clinton ban but I hear some old timers still ***** about it. We still have a division in the sport that was a direct result of the legislation. All the time, it really didn't stop availability but drove prices through the roof. Why do you think the single stack autos came back in popularity? Manufacturers changed their products and marketing. Some companies were left with inventory that sat in warehouses until the sunset. Not everyone just "plinks" at the range. If that's your gig, enjoy, but don't tell others to swallow your medicine. Legislation impacts lives whether you care to believe it or not. "It probably won't help, but it's really not going to hurt", is a piss poor excuse to pass laws.
Originally Posted by dbglock