Gun Companies Boycott New York.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

You know originally, I put "they" instead of "gun grabbers", but decided to put "gun grabbers" instead. Why not call "them" out by their real intent? Discussion? In my opinion, the bill of rights is not up for discussion. It is called the Bill of RIGHTS. Not the bill of NEEDS. So no, i don't think any item contained within the bill of rights is up for discussion.

Now if you want to talk about how to keep guns and other weapons away from criminals and the mentally insane, that is indeed a topic for disucssion. But the INSTANT that "discussion" is about changing, altering, cheapening, lessening, etc on the bill of rights for competent law abiding citizens, there is no discussion at all.

My point in using the term 'fetishist' stems from the fact that talking to people in those terms is inherently disrespectful. I am not a gun owner. While I support your right to own those firearms, including AR-15s, I do not share your philosophy about the urgency of gun ownership. And yet, as I am not trying to take your guns away, I have been slapped with that term by individuals that do take your view. While it is probable that you were not applying that term to me specifically, it's use did certainly rub me the wrong way.

[August]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

"Gun grabber" is a term used to belittle proponents of gun control. "Gun fetishist" is a term used to belittle supporters of gun ownership and rights. Apples and apples.

Unless they are an elected official then no proponent of gun control has the ability to grab anyone's guns. So it is indeed apples and oranges.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by August

Unless they are an elected official then no proponent of gun control has the ability to grab anyone's guns. So it is indeed apples and oranges.

Your fellow advocates disagree. Definition No. 2; second most popular.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...=Gun%20Grabber

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

My point in using the term 'fetishist' stems from the fact that talking to people in those terms is inherently disrespectful. I am not a gun owner. While I support your right to own those firearms, including AR-15s, I do not share your philosophy about the urgency of gun ownership. And yet, as I am not trying to take your guns away, I have been slapped with that term by individuals that do take your view. While it is probable that you were not applying that term to me specifically, it's use did certainly rub me the wrong way.

The thing about the gun control merry go round, is the longer you stay on it, the more vitriolic it becomes. There's an Godwin like rule somewhere, that the longer it goes on, the less the other side will understand the other. I've been trying to avoid the issue. I've already done all i can, and have been more politically active in in the last couple months, then I have in my entire lifetime. I don't think everything the NRA does is all honkey dory, but they are the best organization to contribute money to for the preservation of the second amendment. My point is, i've done all i can, and i'm past the point of caring too much, because their's not much else I can do except pony up a vote against anyone who decides our Constituational rights are subject for debate. Yeah, i think the slippery slope argument is applicable here. It starts here, or there, but when does it stop? I think our civil rights should be concrete. Fixed. Immoveable.

Yeah, i can already sense the "well why not own a machine gun" argument forming, though I don't think you'd be as so disingenuous to make it. A machine gun, (AKA, real assault weapon) to me is just impractical. I've never really had a "boner" for one. In fact, I have a gold membership at a local shooting range that has it's Class 3 license (meaning they can have machine guns), and could rent one to use on their range for free at any time I like. I have yet to do so. Fun? Sure. But too expensive in ammo, and just not practical. I'd rather spend my time improving my own techniques on guns id actually use. (Mainly pistols)

I would say the same (impractical) for the real "high capacity magazines". Google image search, "Beta mag". That's your real Hi cap mag, The ones Fienstien et all are after are Normal capacity magazines. 30 round mags come standard on most rifles based on Armalite Rifle No 15. Fifteen round mags come standard on most 9mm pistols. This is one beef of people familiar with fireams have. The politicians behind gun control, and most of their supporters want ban stuff they know next to nothing about.

EDIT:
And for the love of (insert diety here), don't call a "magazine" a "clip", or even worse, say "high capacity magazine clips". These words are like nails on a blackboard to anyone familiar with firearms. They are the words uttered out of ignorance. Anyone making any argument for gun control immediatly loses all crediblity when they first utter these words. Call a magazine a clip just ONCE, and your done talking, cause their done listening.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

The thing about the gun control merry go round, is the longer you stay on it, the more vitriolic it becomes.

The politicians behind gun control, and most of their supporters want ban stuff they know next to nothing about.

Not to totally butcher your post, but I think that you are completely right about both of these things, and I think that most of the problem in the whole 'gun' argument stems from a combination of both. The environment is toxic, and people are staying in that toxic environment longer due to the fact that people are trying to pass laws about guns that don't know anything about them. Personally, I have next to no real knowledge about firearms. I know what a rifle and a handgun is. I understand caliber. I know the difference between a clip and a magazine. I have ideas about places where it is appropriate to carry a gun and where it isn't appropriate to do so. However, I do not know enough to hold an opinion of what ammunition capacity is adequate and what is overkill.

The arugment about capacity seems silly to me. A man carrying a small pistol with even one shot can kill another man, and dead is dead. Is a tragedy less of a tragedy because one person dies instead of two? Probably not to the family of the one that died. As I also understand it, a very small percentage of murders with firearms involve high-capacity weapons. They're big. They're unwieldy. Not great for carrying around concealed.

[AVGWarhawk]

I was puzzled the other day. My wife and I got on the conversation of guns and gun control. I asked her if she would like a gun in the house. She said yes. I asked why. She said the nuts have one and I would like one just in case that nut comes into our home. Totally unexpected answer.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

However, I do not know enough to hold an opinion of what ammunition capacity is adequate and what is overkill.

The arugment about capacity seems silly to me. A man carrying a small pistol with even one shot can kill another man, and dead is dead. Is a tragedy less of a tragedy because one person dies instead of two? Probably not to the family of the one that died.

Well we're agreed that ammo capacity arguments are silly. I know enough to say this:
Shot placement is everything.
I'm sure you heard that newsclip that progun supporters were pointing out about how that mother defended her kids and shot some guy with 5 rounds out of a revolver. He walked out of there, and didn't collapse until later.

More to the point, in terms of lawful defense of self and others, limiting magazines is a bad idea because:

1. Home intruders don't always come solo. Some of those guys work as a team of 3 or 4 men. (Hold right there fellas while i reload my 6 shot revolver)

2. No matter how much practice you do, under duress, you will miss. You can have a 15 round mag of hollowpoints (so they won't go very far past the first wall they come in contact with when if/when you miss), and only hit the guy 3 times out of those 15 shots.

3. In the case of handguns, unless your a crack shot, it is not one bullet and the guy dies. It will more often then not take multiple rounds until the threat stops. (IE, the guy drops)

4. It doesn't take long to reload a detachable box magazine. If someones bent on mass shooting, if he doesn't acquire his "high capaicty magazines" through illegal means, it just means he'll carry more mags on him. You do not need much practice to be able to reload a magazine quickly.

As I also understand it, a very small percentage of murders with firearms involve high-capacity weapons. They're big. They're unwieldy. Not great for carrying around concealed.

Your right. Rifles are a very small percentage of crimes commited with guns. The rifles they want to ban, are only a small subset of that group. Handguns are more widely used. If you don't mind a couple of trauma pictures in the context a medical presentation, you may find this highly informative.

[August]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Your fellow advocates disagree. Definition No. 2; second most popular.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...=Gun%20Grabber

My fellow advocates? I'm sorry Takeda but incorrect and anonymous claims are not proof of anything except your willingness to grasp at straws.

Simple logic dictates that the only way you can take a persons legally owned firearm away from them is by force of law. When you have the capability to enact legislation then you can proudly wear the title of gun grabber and not before.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I was puzzled the other day. My wife and I got on the conversation of guns and gun control. I asked her if she would like a gun in the house. She said yes. I asked why. She said the nuts have one and I would like one just in case that nut comes into our home. Totally unexpected answer.

A bunch of years ago, there was this gang of home invaders operating in MD. Pretty nasty people. Pretty brutal.

After a while they were caught. One of the reporters asked them, why they chose MD as opposed to the more affluent VA just across the river.

Their answer: Virginia has guns. Criminals might prefer operating in states with more restrictive gun laws.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Platapus

A bunch of years ago, there was this gang of home invaders operating in MD. Pretty nasty people. Pretty brutal.

After a while they were caught. One of the reporters asked them, why they chose MD as opposed to the more affluent VA just across the river.

Their answer: Virginia has guns. Criminals might prefer operating in states with more restrictive gun laws.

Heh, yea that is one thing gun control advocates overlook. Areas with the highest crime rates, also tend to have stricter gun laws. Conversely, areas with more lax gun control laws, tend to have lower crime rates. What scares me in this, is the politicans coming back and saying something like, "OMG, we still have all this crime! We didn't do enough the first time. We need more bans! Ban everything!", leaving people defenseless, and metaphorically putting a fire out with gasoline.

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Discussion? In my opinion, the bill of rights is not up for discussion. It is called the Bill of RIGHTS. Not the bill of NEEDS. So no, i don't think any item contained within the bill of rights is up for discussion.

Now if you want to talk about how to keep guns and other weapons away from criminals and the mentally insane, that is indeed a topic for disucssion. But the INSTANT that "discussion" is about changing, altering, cheapening, lessening, etc on the bill of rights for competent law abiding citizens, there is no discussion at all.

Congratulations, you have destroyed your own arguement in a single post.
Well done.

[Armistead]

I agree with Ducimas. I get tired of people saying I don't need a AR with a 30 round clip to defend myself, that a pistol will do. I'm a fairly good shot with a pistol when I'm not nervous. A pistol is light, just a minor shake and your bullet goes way off. Unless your highly skilled and use to combat, good luck with a pistol. I have a nerve disease so I shake a tad, but a rifle is heavy enough to deal with my shakes, a pistol isn't.

Still, owning a gun isn't just about protection, it's our constitutional right to defend against government.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Still, owning a gun isn't just about protection, it's our constitutional right to defend against government.

Why do you have a government then?

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Platapus

A bunch of years ago, there was this gang of home invaders operating in MD. Pretty nasty people. Pretty brutal.

After a while they were caught. One of the reporters asked them, why they chose MD as opposed to the more affluent VA just across the river.

Their answer: Virginia has guns. Criminals might prefer operating in states with more restrictive gun laws.

No doubt.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Why do you have a government then?

Defend against a govt. that turns to tyranny. No, not likely to happen here in US, but you know why, because we've always had a 1st/4th amendment backed by the 2nd. In nations without those rights, well, we see what can happen.