Las Vegas shooting

So in response to a mass killing you are ready to support a law that you yourself admit wouldn't have stopped that mass killing.....

Wow!!!!

I'm out this is just plain retarded at this point.

Why don't we just split the country and get it over with. There is no intelligent discussion to be had with that type of logic.

 

Why? A motivated individual could make their own explosive anyway. You can find information how to do it on the internet.

Have you already purchased and legally own a high capacity mag? Good for you, enjoy it, do not sell it because it's now illegal to sell. I don't want to go round up any of them, just make sure a criminal who doesn't already have them has to acquire them through lessor crimes where we may have a chance to intercept them.

But is it illegal stuff? The bar for scaring people isn't high, but knowing an illegal arms dealer is not very common for legal gun owners...because they're all totally law abiding right?

 

There are 4 people in my family and I am not willing to spend the $52 in additional taxes. That is assuming the number of guns that are classified as "assault" is as low as you say. Knowing how government works you can safely assume they will stretch the definition to get rid of as many firearms as possible. Who will pony up for my share?
And what are they classifying as an "assault rifle"? Are you talking all semi-autos or just "black" guns? What caliber? What magazine capacity? Can I have a bolt action rifle with a 30 round magazine? Depending on what the "common sense" legislation wording is I can see at least 1/2 of the guns in America fitting in to the "assault" category. It is pretty obvious that end game is the disarming of the population...

 

Incorrect. This is NOT in response to this one particular incident. This isn't a knee jerk reaction. This has been a long held stance of mine, although not necessarily spelled out on this forum, so no I can't offer you any proof of that. So what are your arguments against that type of legislation, other than you think I am just retarded and making a knee jerk reaction to this incident?

 

Yep. You can. Basic explosives are actually easier than guns to make. Centrifuges to enrich uranium to a point where it is fissile is an entirely different thing though. I personally do not put any of them in the same category as a firearm. You do not have sporting competitions or hunting with nukes, grenades or landmines.

Unless you are looking long, long term a high capacity ban would not do any good. Do you have any idea how many magazines are out there? Every person I know with a semiauto rifle has at least 20 magazines per rifle... And for the record, for those guns 30 rounds is standard capacity. This "high capacity" bullshit is just to scare people. A magazine ban will just drive up prices and piss people off, neither of which will decrease crime.

Yes.

 

So then based on the logic espoused in this thread - why have a law against it? If the law isn't going to physically stop someone from making explosives, why ban it?

[EDIT - you answered above, so you can disregard]

What's the proper amount of restriction in your opinion? Further, what should be restricted? Should individuals be able to possess mounted machine guns, etc.? If the interpretation of some in this thread is to be followed (that the 2A is to protect us from tyranny within our government, meaning that we need to have all weapons available to use that the government has), where does the limit on individual weapon ownership end?

 

Still waiting for Pepsi to give me my Harrier Jet and then I'll be in the market for all the add-on goodies.

 

From the first paragraph from the first story on orlando that came up on google,

"As Patience Carter and two friends cowered inside the handicapped bathroom stall, injured and pinned by a crush of bleeding bodies, the gunman who opened fire in the Pulse nightclub kept talking. “He said, ‘Are there any black people in here?’ I was too afraid to answer,” said Carter, who is African American."

 

My line of questioning was facetious; I thought the last statement made that obvious ("I think we should really dig into the details of this because it's central to the point he was making.") but sometimes sarcasm is hard to pickup online, so sorry for that.

 

The gun debate will die down and we'll compromise with bump stocks. I'm over here just hoping the libs don't go after tannerite.

 

I love when libs call for a ban on high capacity clips. Do they not realize that high capacity clip they're talking about is the standard size?

 

The opposite of a hugs&kisses cannon... Duh!