Like Tree156Likes

Thread: The Gun Control Debate.......Anybody else seeing this trend?

  1. #351
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,073

    Default

    Gun dealers worked the crowd at a police community gun buy out offering better deals than the cops.

    Name:  843844_424017494347154_1338627348_o.jpg
Views: 56
Size:  24.4 KB
    Chenzo likes this.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  2. #352
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    I mean, you want proof that gun control works, just look at Chicago. Safest place in the nation right? It's not like they're leading the nation in violent crime and homicides or anything.
    Good ol' Chicago and their gun problem. Where 80+% of their violent crime is gang related and 96% of the homicides are committed by people with history of arrest.

    Sounds like a different kind of problem to me.

  3. #353
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    Firstly, let me preface this with, it is not a response to YOU, because I know where you stand on the situation, it's a response to the NEED argument.

    The need argument is THE absolute worst argument for the anti-gun side. It's based on the notion that everything you have is out of necessity, not pure desire or pleasure.

    People have boats, jet-skis, snow mobiles, $200,000 RV's, $3mil houses, 12 cars, 17 motorcycles, a maid, a butler, a driver, 1,000 acres of land, WHATEVER. Tell me why you or anyone needs that?

    I just laugh and walk away whenever someone presents the need argument, because it shows they have no grounds for a logical, rational argument. Why do I need a 25 round magazine for my 10/22, or a 30 round magazine for my AR, or a 17 round magazine for my carry pistol? Because I can, because I want to, because I feel it more adequately allows me to defend myself. Why do you need to try to impose your beliefs onto me?
    I've always figured that if someone wants to restrict or take away a right, they should have the burden of proof.
    SPFDRum, voyager9 and Chenzo like this.

  4. #354
    MembersZone Subscriber
    voyager9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Southern NJ
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    I've always figured that if someone wants to restrict or take away a right, they should have the burden of proof.
    I think this applies to almost anything, not just a right, and not just gun control. If you want to take something away from someone, then you have to show why. The more people impacted, the higher the bar. Simply saying 'This should be taken away because you don't need it' is not sound reasoning or justification.

    We should ban alcohol as nobody NEEDS alcohol.. and look how effective the current limitation has been.
    So you call this your free country
    Tell me why it costs so much to live
    -3dd

  5. #355
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    I've always figured that if someone wants to restrict or take away a right, they should have the burden of proof.
    Which is why I'm not advocating restricting or taking away the right to bear arms.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  6. #356
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Of course you have to use our words. You have none of your own on this topic that don't make you look like a buffoon. So yes, do continue, your credibility shrinks by the second.

    You have to turn it into a game. That is the last resort of a defeated fool.
    Lol. I've only advocated restricting magazine capacity and eliminating transactions at gun shows that aren't recorded. You and the others claim that magazine capacity is not an issue due to the brief amount of time required to change. You then moved the goal line claiming that it does matter in a scenario when it suited you.


    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    I mean, you want proof that gun control works, just look at Chicago. Safest place in the nation right? It's not like they're leading the nation in violent crime and homicides or anything.
    I've addressed this issue before. Research in Chicago (and other places like Newark) has shown the majority of the guns used in homicides were obtained via the secondary market in states where there are lax rules regarding transactions at gun shows.

    Quote Originally Posted by voyager9 View Post
    It should be banned because you don't need it.

    Perhaps the same logic should be applied to abortion? Or minimum wage? Or same sex marriage? You really don't need any of those things either so banning them should be ok, right?
    Not good analogies until someone uses minimum wage or same sex marriage to gun down a bunch of six year olds or sneaks them into a theater to kill or wound five dozen people.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    SCFire has admitted defeat in his very own special way.

    Do any of you honestly believe this is the tactic of someone who believes he is winning a debate? Do any of you honestly believe he has any ability to seriously, with facts, debate this topic? He has resorted to diversions, outright lies, taking things out of context, and refusing to comment on direct answers to his idiotic posts. He knows he is beaten and now resorts to childish antics in a phony attempt to claim some kind of high ground.

    The truth is the 2nd Ammendment is crystal clear in its meaning. The amount of law enforcement departments across the nation refusing to enforce new federal anti-gun laws , and states that are passing laws prohibiting the feds from enforcing anti-2nd Ammendment laws grows every day. This will not go away...the resistance continues to grow.

    The wanna be king is gonna get bitch slapped for this stupid political game.
    The delusions and meltdown continues. The 2nd Amendment is crystal clear in its meaning. However, the SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly (including some of the more conservative jurists) that it is not an absolute. Legislation has been passed repeatedly that places limits on what types of weapons the citizens can own. You should read up on the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act or 1968, or the Brady Act. They are fascinating topics. Be forewarned, there are usually very few pictures in legislation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    Good ol' Chicago and their gun problem. Where 80+% of their violent crime is gang related and 96% of the homicides are committed by people with history of arrest.

    Sounds like a different kind of problem to me.
    Addressed the Chicago earlier. Feel free to read near the beginning of this post.
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-29-2013 at 11:11 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  7. #357
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Again with a broad, sweeping statement. Where is the proof of these guns used in Chicago are from a secondary market in states with lax gun show laws. Until I can read it for myself, its nothing more than unfounded BS.
    Chenzo likes this.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  8. #358
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    Again with a broad, sweeping statement. Where is the proof of these guns used in Chicago are from a secondary market in states with lax gun show laws. Until I can read it for myself, its nothing more than unfounded BS.
    I saw an interview with the mayor of Newark. He asked his police chief to research the issue. That was the conclusion. According to him, Rahm Emanuel has discovered the same thing.

    I'll take their word for it till proven otherwise. BTW, neither of those mayors are advocating restricting firearms ownership. So don't get all wacky about them assaulting the 2nd Amendment.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  9. #359
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,073

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Lol. I've only advocated restricting magazine capacity and eliminating transactions at gun shows that aren't recorded. You and the others claim that magazine capacity is not an issue due to the brief amount of time required to change. You then moved the goal line claiming that it does matter in a scenario when it suited you.

    Yet another lie. You called for shutting down gun shows.

    I have repeatedly responded to your idiotic ramblings about magazine capacity, as have others. Your inability to comprehend what was said is not our problem.




    The delusions and meltdown continues. The 2nd Amendment is crystal clear in its meaning. However, the SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly (including some of the more conservative jurists) that it is not an absolute. Legislation has been passed repeatedly that places limits on what types of weapons the citizens can own. You should read up on the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act or 1968, or the Brady Act. They are fascinating topics. Be forewarned, there are usually very few pictures in legislation.

    No delusions or melt down. No matter how badly you wish it to be so. You said this was nothing but fun for you. This is deadly serious to me.
    Nice try to redeem yourself...too bad it didn't work.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  10. #360
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I saw an interview with the mayor of Newark. He asked his police chief to research the issue. That was the conclusion. According to him, Rahm Emanuel has discovered the same thing.

    I'll take their word for it till proven otherwise. BTW, neither of those mayors are advocating restricting firearms ownership. So don't get all wacky about them assaulting the 2nd Amendment.
    That's it, that's all you have? You are being funny, right? All the evidence posted on here, and none of it is adequate enough for you, and you expect us to believe something only you heard from 2 politicians? Right up to this moment you had a shred of credibility. Come on man, get out from under the liberal skirt and start thinking for yourself. At minimum, provide even 1 iota of evidence to back your claims up. If even only to humor us.
    Chenzo likes this.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  11. #361
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,073

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    That's it, that's all you have? You are being funny, right? All the evidence posted on here, and none of it is adequate enough for you, and you expect us to believe something only you heard from 2 politicians? Right up to this moment you had a shred of credibility. Come on man, get out from under the liberal skirt and start thinking for yourself. At minimum, provide even 1 iota of evidence to back your claims up. If even only to humor us.
    He can't and he won't. Worse is he doesn't care.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  12. #362
    MembersZone Subscriber
    voyager9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Southern NJ
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Lol. I've only advocated restricting magazine capacity and eliminating transactions at gun shows that aren't recorded.
    You're either a blatant liar or addled on the brain. Just two pages ago you said:
    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Then eliminate all secondary market transactions.
    So you call this your free country
    Tell me why it costs so much to live
    -3dd

  13. #363
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,073

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by voyager9 View Post
    You're either a blatant liar or addled on the brain. Just two pages ago you said:
    I thinks it's both!!
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  14. #364
    Forum Member
    Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Which is why I'm not advocating restricting or taking away the right to bear arms.
    I can't believe this got skipped over. This post is HYSTERICAL!!

    You're not advocating restricting the right to bear arms, however you want a ten round magazine restriction, only for civilians. You want to restrict private party sales and the secondary market.

    Tell me again how that's not a restriction on the right to bear arms?

    You so silly SC. I wish I could be this blind and delusional.
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  15. #365
    MembersZone Subscriber
    voyager9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Southern NJ
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I've addressed this issue before. Research in Chicago (and other places like Newark) has shown the majority of the guns used in homicides were obtained via the secondary market in states where there are lax rules regarding transactions at gun shows.
    Look at all the gang bangers in line for the gun shows...
    Chenzo likes this.
    So you call this your free country
    Tell me why it costs so much to live
    -3dd

  16. #366
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Nice try to redeem yourself...too bad it didn't work.
    It doesn't work for those like you who are in meltdown mode.

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    That's it, that's all you have? You are being funny, right? All the evidence posted on here, and none of it is adequate enough for you, and you expect us to believe something only you heard from 2 politicians? Right up to this moment you had a shred of credibility. Come on man, get out from under the liberal skirt and start thinking for yourself. At minimum, provide even 1 iota of evidence to back your claims up. If even only to humor us.
    I'm sure the mayors of those cities can back up their claims. Feel free to ask them.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    He can't and he won't. Worse is he doesn't care.
    See above response.

    Quote Originally Posted by voyager9 View Post
    You're either a blatant liar or addled on the brain. Just two pages ago you said:
    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    I thinks it's both!!
    This is a twofer meltdown.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    I can't believe this got skipped over. This post is HYSTERICAL!!

    You're not advocating restricting the right to bear arms, however you want a ten round magazine restriction, only for civilians. You want to restrict private party sales and the secondary market.

    Tell me again how that's not a restriction on the right to bear arms?

    You so silly SC. I wish I could be this blind and delusional.
    True. Which one of those beliefs restricts one's right to bear arms. This only shows your belief that any scrutiny of the status quo is an assault on the 2nd Amendment. Which is not the case.

    You are way past the wishing stage of wanting to be blind and delusional. You've been there for some time.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  17. #367
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,073

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    It doesn't work for those like you who are in meltdown mode.

    Another LIE repeated over and over doesn't make it the truth.

    I'm sure the mayors of those cities can back up their claims. Feel free to ask them.

    No sir, you made the statement now supply dcumentation to back it up. You know like you demand of us.

    See above response.

    Continued LIES and game playing just show your weakness.

    This is a twofer meltdown.

    It sure is. Two of us called you on YOUR Bull Schite and you melted down.


    True. Which one of those beliefs restricts one's right to bear arms. This only shows your belief that any scrutiny of the status quo is an assault on the 2nd Amendment. Which is not the case.

    Yes it is, and just because you are an appeaser, the worst kind of anti-gun person, doesn't make us wrong and certainly does not make you right.

    You are way past the wishing stage of wanting to be blind and delusional. You've been there for some time.

    Says the man with his fingers in his ears screaming Nah ner, nah ner.
    Just once and for all just admit it.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  18. #368
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Blind and delusional says the guy that has yet to prove anything. And we are melting down? Your credibility in this issue is a poster for epic fail.
    But I guess when you can't counter facts and nobody bites on the race bait, what is left but being the pivot man in your own little circle jerk.
    Last edited by SPFDRum; 01-29-2013 at 06:41 PM.
    FyredUp and Chenzo like this.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  19. #369
    Forum Member
    Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    True. Which one of those beliefs restricts one's right to bear arms. This only shows your belief that any scrutiny of the status quo is an assault on the 2nd Amendment. Which is not the case.
    Any infringement on my ability to defend my family is an assault on my 2nd Amendment rights. Sorry Obama and Feinstein have convinced you otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    You are way past the wishing stage of wanting to be blind and delusional. You've been there for some time.
    Far from it, I'm more awake and things are clearer than they ever have been. I've woken up from the delusional state that you can't part from.
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  20. #370
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Just once and for all just admit it.
    I've admitted it many times that you and others read things that are not being said.

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    Blind and delusional says the guy that has yet to prove anything. And we are melting down? Your credibility in this issue is a poster for epic fail.
    But I guess when you can't counter facts and nobody bites on the race bait, what is left but being the pivot man in your own little circle jerk.
    I've made my points several times. I've proved my point to the same extent as those whose opinions differ from mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    Any infringement on my ability to defend my family is an assault on my 2nd Amendment rights. Sorry Obama and Feinstein have convinced you otherwise.

    Far from it, I'm more awake and things are clearer than they ever have been. I've woken up from the delusional state that you can't part from.
    The courts disagree with you regarding the definition of infringement. There are numerous weapons one is not allowed to own. Including several types of firearms that are either prohibited or there is an onerous process one must submit to in either to have possession.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  21. #371
    MembersZone Subscriber
    voyager9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Southern NJ
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    The courts disagree with you regarding the definition of infringement. There are numerous weapons one is not allowed to own. Including several types of firearms that are either prohibited or there is an onerous process one must submit to in either to have possession.
    You're incorrect.

    There is a huge difference between the courts disagreeing and not ruling. As you and i discussed 10 pages ago. To date not of the current laws which restrict firearm ownership have been challenged in the Supreme Court.

    The closest they have come is in DC vs Heller:
    (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
    This establishes that civilians. Can own the same firearms as the military and law enforcement.

    Ther is also McDonald v Chicago:
    The plurality decision also reaffirmed that certain firearms restrictions mentioned in District of Columbia v. Heller are assumed permissible and not directly dealt with in this case.[23] Such restrictions include those to "prohibit...the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill" and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"
    This didn't establish limits but left the door open to them. Either way the examples cited were based on location or personal history. weapon type or number of rounds is not specifically mentioned.
    FyredUp and Chenzo like this.
    So you call this your free country
    Tell me why it costs so much to live
    -3dd

  22. #372
    Forum Member
    Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I've admitted it many times that you and others read things that are not being said.


    I've made my points several times. I've proved my point to the same extent as those whose opinions differ from mine.


    The courts disagree with you regarding the definition of infringement. There are numerous weapons one is not allowed to own. Including several types of firearms that are either prohibited or there is an onerous process one must submit to in either to have possession.
    More made up facts. Sad, really.
    Last edited by Chenzo; 01-29-2013 at 09:04 PM.
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  23. #373
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Which is why I'm not advocating restricting or taking away the right to bear arms.
    Yeah, yeah. Only to reduce magazine size and more stringent background checks.

    What, exactly, is reducing magazine size going to do? These people are packing mag upon mag in tactical vests. It's not going to make much of a difference in weight or space to pack 3 ten-round mags vs. 1 thirty-round mag.

    The argument that people can take action while one is changing mags is BS. The single example that argument is used on is Tuscon. What those who argue with that one forget to bring up is that Loughner dropped the mag. Dropping the mag gave time for people to react, not changing the mag.

    If the whole mag issue made such a difference, why didn't it in Aurora or Sandy Hook? Holmes started with a shotgun (not on the ban list) and then had his "assault rifle" jam after firing less than thirty rounds. From there he used a handgun (again, not on the ban list). He used a pump shotgun, and no one was able to stop him between rounds. He then switch guns, and no one was able to stop him. His gun jammed and he swapped again, but no one was able to stop him. He changed mags in the Glock at least three times, but no one was able to stop him.

    Lanza changed out mags several times, but no one managed to stop him.

    Harris and Klebold swapped guns and mags several times, yet no one was able to stop them. They were also using banned weapons. (Than ban worked well, didn't it)

    Cho swapped mags and weapons several times, yet no one was able to stop him.

    So tell me, where is the data that shows that a reduction in magazine size is going to help anyone? Or is it just a hypothesis based we should test on a permanent basis? If we're going to use past experience, perhaps we should require every shooter to drop their mag when they change out.

    All the gun control argument does is take away from the real problem- our government can't enforce the laws we already have and prevent people who aren't supposed to have guns from getting them. Yet they want to pass more laws that they can't enforce. Helluva idea!
    voyager9 and Chenzo like this.

  24. #374
    MembersZone Subscriber
    voyager9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Southern NJ
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Henson Ong at Gun Violence Prevention public hearing:


    He does a very good job making his points and obviously came prepared.
    Catch22 likes this.
    So you call this your free country
    Tell me why it costs so much to live
    -3dd

  25. #375
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by voyager9 View Post
    You're incorrect.

    There is a huge difference between the courts disagreeing and not ruling. As you and i discussed 10 pages ago. To date not of the current laws which restrict firearm ownership have been challenged in the Supreme Court.
    The GCA of 1968 has been challenged over 200 times. The courts have tossed all of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    Yeah, yeah. Only to reduce magazine size and more stringent background checks.

    What, exactly, is reducing magazine size going to do? These people are packing mag upon mag in tactical vests. It's not going to make much of a difference in weight or space to pack 3 ten-round mags vs. 1 thirty-round mag.
    Since many of you have stated the changing magazines is so easy, there should be no problem with limiting capacity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    The argument that people can take action while one is changing mags is BS. The single example that argument is used on is Tuscon. What those who argue with that one forget to bring up is that Loughner dropped the mag. Dropping the mag gave time for people to react, not changing the mag.
    Yet that has happened. Loughner dropped the mag and allowed time for his potential victims to act. Precisely my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    If the whole mag issue made such a difference, why didn't it in Aurora or Sandy Hook? Holmes started with a shotgun (not on the ban list) and then had his "assault rifle" jam after firing less than thirty rounds. From there he used a handgun (again, not on the ban list). He used a pump shotgun, and no one was able to stop him between rounds. He then switch guns, and no one was able to stop him. His gun jammed and he swapped again, but no one was able to stop him. He changed mags in the Glock at least three times, but no one was able to stop him.
    You make my point. He had to carry other weapons. Still time for victims to act. Something they wouldn't have had with a larger magazine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    Lanza changed out mags several times, but no one managed to stop him.
    I never said the act was an absolute. It's a possibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    Harris and Klebold swapped guns and mags several times, yet no one was able to stop them. They were also using banned weapons. (Than ban worked well, didn't it)
    See above response. We don't know how many people were able to escape the killing spree by getting away while magazine changeout was occurring.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    Cho swapped mags and weapons several times, yet no one was able to stop him.
    See above response. The school also had numerous armed guards. Using your logic I could say that is not an effective alternative either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    So tell me, where is the data that shows that a reduction in magazine size is going to help anyone? Or is it just a hypothesis based we should test on a permanent basis? If we're going to use past experience, perhaps we should require every shooter to drop their mag when they change out.
    I used the same data source as yourself when you claim a larger magazine will make you safer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    All the gun control argument does is take away from the real problem- our government can't enforce the laws we already have and prevent people who aren't supposed to have guns from getting them. Yet they want to pass more laws that they can't enforce. Helluva idea!
    So let's get rid of all laws since the government can't enforce all of them all of the time.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Anyone else see a trend.....
    By BCmdepas3280 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-16-2006, 01:12 AM
  2. Noticeable Trend?
    By ltoffd in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-02-2004, 01:30 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-24-2004, 11:11 AM
  4. Disturbing Trend - MUTT x 4
    By RspctFrmCalgary in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-21-2002, 10:42 AM
  5. Disturbing Trend
    By firedog11ku in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-01-2001, 10:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register