Here is my take on this. I personally believe that there is no need for a 100 round magazine. They increase the weight the gun and make the gun less accurate to shoot, but are really fun to shoot. I also do not see the need for a fully automatic machine gun either. However, I also do not see a need to own a 370 hp sedan. Do I own one, vehicle, YES. Do I believe that the magazines or fully automatic weapons should be band, NO.
Why do I believe this, two reasons. First and for most “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not say you can keep and bear arms as long as it fits these requirements or is needed. It says shall not be infringed. If we want to modify the second amendment how about changing the first amendment so that what you can say on a forum will be decided on upon the populous vote. Secondly I do not believe that gun control will prevent a mass shooting because there is already a law that prevents all mass shootings, and it is in almost every county in the world. Thou shall not kill. If you are going to break this law what law would stop you from killing?
Take the last 3 major shootings reported in the national media. The suspect that set his house on fire and then killed the firefighters as they arrived was a convicted felon for killing his grandmother with a hammer. He could not legally possess a fire arm, let alone purchase one legally. In the Sandy Hook shooting he stole the firearms and was under 21 so he could not possess the handguns that he stole. In the Mall shooting in Oregon, the suspect borrowed the gun from a friend and once confronted with a gun pointed at him ran and shot himself. Also the man that pulled the gun on the mall shooter preventing further victims was actually violating the mall policies of a gun free zone. No gun control would have prevented these. The only way to have prevented the guns that were used in these shootings would have been by making the possession them illegal and seizing them from their owners before the shooting. Virginia Tech is still the larges mass shooting and it was by 2 semi-automatic pistols. Only making all semi-automatic firearms illegal to own and seizing them would have prevented Virginia Tech.
Even if I do not see the need for a firearm or magazine I do see the need to uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Right.
__________________
2012 Blackberry Pearl Charger R/T Max - 38% tint, K&N drop it, Charger script and heritage R/T grill and rear emblems
2008 Light Sandstone Metallic Charger R/T - Traded 4-3-2012, Good bye my friend it was fun, you will be missed
If you want to pretend that gun free zones are the reason that someone can go on a shooting spree with a semi-automatic weapon then you really need to think about why it might be that you are so much more likely to get shot here than in the UK.
The example of the President is a good one: Despite all that heavy security, several Presidents have in fact been shot. As he is in a position to know something about this, maybe we should ask James Brady? Similarly the comparison to cars is good: Our Chargers are subject to lots of regulation, taxes, and need insurance; you might even say they are "well regulated"...
The debate quibbling over exactly what sort of gun was used is really a sideshow, of the kind usually used by partisans who want to make a false argument from authority, based on terminology. In any case, the gun in the car was apparently just one of the other weapons that Nancy Lanza owned. The Wikipedia article is quite clear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_H...chool_shooting
As it turns out, the weapon used was very similar to other recent big shootings (such as against the firemen, and in Aurora). However, even if the exact definition particularly matters to you, it's still a distraction because the average six-year-old probably doesn't care precisely what sort of gun is being used to murder her classmates.
Finally, here's a question for you: Do you think that Nancy Lanza's guns made her feel safer (at least before they were used to kill her)? Do you think that they really did make her safer?
__________________ But ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science. - Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man.
Finally, here's a question for you: Do you think that Nancy Lanza's guns made her feel safer?
Yes.
Do you think that they really did make her safer?
Yes.
It was her own stupidity in how she kept them and how she trained her son to use them that led to her death.
Giving an 8-year old the keys to a car doesn't make the car dangerous. It's the action of giving them the keys that does.
People burn down their houses every year deep-frying turkeys for Thanksgiving. Neither the turkey or the hot oil is the cause.
Guns aren't the problem. They are inanimate objects that don't have the ability to do anything. Rocks, hammers and baseball bats are the same way.
When everyone finally realizes that, then we can focus on the real cause...people.
Why is it so hard to understand that?
Why are some folks in denial that the individual that murdered all those children was the problem, not the tools he used to commit the crime?
__________________
2006 Inferno Red SRT-8
Option groups I, II, & III + Sunroof
Built Thursday February 23, 2006 Triple A Performance (AirFunnel, AirHog, Aces IV) QuantumBlue Custom Blended Oil (Yeah, it's that good)
I will drive her until one of us dies!1/4 mile: 13.388 secs@105.75 mph
Finally, here's a question for you: Do you think that Nancy Lanza's guns made her feel safer (at least before they were used to kill her)? Do you think that they really did make her safer?
If only there were a law that would have prevented him from killing her and stealing her guns.
Though it's not "Politically Correct" to "blame a victim", I don't feel she had any business taking her son, who had a documented social/behavioral disorder, to the range and teaching him how to use the weapons.
There is a concept, underutilized in most assault weapons ban discussions...
Kudos, Ddaddy!
__________________ I am the Stig
2010 R/T DWBlue, 2800 PI stall, Homemade CAI, JBA headers and mids, Flowmaster catback, Custom tune by Diablotoona, 180 T-stat, 3.06 rear gears.
__________________
2006 SRT8 175,000 miles+ (ordered with F1s and options)
If the govt was still calculating the unemployment rate using the same criteria, the “official” rate today would be closer to 18%. In 2004, median income man in his 30s - $35,010. Adj. for inflation, 12 percent less than 1974.
While I don't necessarily disagree with the insurance idea, a couple of problems come to mind:
1) It will be found unconstitutional because only people with means will be able to afford insurance. This flies in the face of an individual's RIGHT to bear arms. And you can't use the "if they can afford the gun, they can afford the insurance." I have 3 guns that were left to me from my dad.
2) What will ultimately happen would resemble car ownership. The people who can afford insurance will pay it, the people that can't....won't. When they get "busted", those that don't pay will fall back on the 2nd amendment and win, because unlike car ownership, gun ownership is a right.
FG
__________________
"Victorious warriors win first, and then go to war....
while defeated warriors go to war seeking to win." -Sun Tzu
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
1/4 mile: 13.388 secs@105.75 mph
Linear Mode
