This is why I NEED an AR-15 with 30rd mags

1456810

Comments

  • Cosmo said:

    unsung said:

    JimmyV said:

    unsung said:

    Well he murdered his mother and stole that firearm so lets not pretend that it was legally obtained.

    And in doing so he exemplified how very dangerous these legally obtained firearms are to society. The gun was legally obtained by its owner...and then it was used by a psychopath to murder innocent children. Had the mother not legally obtained such weapons, many of those children in Newtown would still be alive today.
    You don't know that for certain.
    He committed about 35 felonies, how many more laws do you want him to break? All the laws written don't stop bad people from doing bad things.
    All your solution does is punish the law abiding... Yeah yeah yeah, I know, law abiding until they aren't.
    *looking for that dang roll eyes smiley*
    ...
    Wait... are you talking about Adam Lanza... did he commit 35 felonies prior to murdering those children? What felonies did Adam Lanza commit before his murderous spree?
    ...
    i think the Newton case points out a lot of what is in this discussion.
    Mrs. Lanza was a law abiding citizen. She obtained these weapons by legal means. She didn't buy the guns for her son.
    By definition you can call her a responsible gun owner.
    Where that definition fails in the fact that her son, Adam, had access to those same weapons.
    ...
    What we saw was that there is a requirement for all gun ownser to fully secure all of his weapons from family members... or have full control over his family members in order to be responsible for his own gun.
    Mrs/ Lanza could have either locked away all of her guns from her son... either in a gun safe where she held both of the keys or storge them offsite, away from the home she shared with her son... or sold off the guns until her son was out of the house. That... is being responsible.
    Your last passages regarding 'being responsible' will fall on deaf ears. This point has been brought up before to which, the response is always, "Well ya can't defend yourself against the bad guys if your gun is locked up in some locker now, can ya?"

    The definition for responsible gun ownership on these pages is as long as you're not shooting anyone with your guns... you're responsible. The need to take precautions with your weapons that are commonplace in Canada are seen as 'ridiculous'. That's why we see 5 year old kids shooting each other.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225

    Cosmo said:

    unsung said:

    JimmyV said:

    unsung said:

    Well he murdered his mother and stole that firearm so lets not pretend that it was legally obtained.

    And in doing so he exemplified how very dangerous these legally obtained firearms are to society. The gun was legally obtained by its owner...and then it was used by a psychopath to murder innocent children. Had the mother not legally obtained such weapons, many of those children in Newtown would still be alive today.
    You don't know that for certain.
    He committed about 35 felonies, how many more laws do you want him to break? All the laws written don't stop bad people from doing bad things.
    All your solution does is punish the law abiding... Yeah yeah yeah, I know, law abiding until they aren't.
    *looking for that dang roll eyes smiley*
    ...
    Wait... are you talking about Adam Lanza... did he commit 35 felonies prior to murdering those children? What felonies did Adam Lanza commit before his murderous spree?
    ...
    i think the Newton case points out a lot of what is in this discussion.
    Mrs. Lanza was a law abiding citizen. She obtained these weapons by legal means. She didn't buy the guns for her son.
    By definition you can call her a responsible gun owner.
    Where that definition fails in the fact that her son, Adam, had access to those same weapons.
    ...
    What we saw was that there is a requirement for all gun ownser to fully secure all of his weapons from family members... or have full control over his family members in order to be responsible for his own gun.
    Mrs/ Lanza could have either locked away all of her guns from her son... either in a gun safe where she held both of the keys or storge them offsite, away from the home she shared with her son... or sold off the guns until her son was out of the house. That... is being responsible.
    Your last passages regarding 'being responsible' will fall on deaf ears. This point has been brought up before to which, the response is always, "Well ya can't defend yourself against the bad guys if your gun is locked up in some locker now, can ya?"

    The definition for responsible gun ownership on these pages is as long as you're not shooting anyone with your guns... you're responsible. The need to take precautions with your weapons that are commonplace in Canada are seen as 'ridiculous'. That's why we see 5 year old kids shooting each other.
    ...
    One would think that... but, you could have that weapon on your person at all times, including when you are watching The Disney Channel with the family and handing out presents on Christmas morning. You can secure the weapon when you go to sleep... or better yet, you can stand guard all night.
    That way, you can be sure that no one but yourself can ever do anything irresponsible with that gun.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    How about fingerprint identification on the safety? America is a place where Tylenol has to be in a child-safe container but guns have child-friendly operating mechanisms.
    Simple but I am sure the gun crowd has a reason not to go this route, legitimate or not.

    Also, in reference to my comments on AR's and handguns...I am not against AR regulations at all, I just don't think they will accomplish much. When a pyscho can't carry 1 gun with 100 rounds, he will carry 10 guns with 10 each. Maybe we can cut the carnage a little bit, but I doubt it.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    edited March 2014
    rgambs said:

    How about fingerprint identification on the safety? America is a place where Tylenol has to be in a child-safe container but guns have child-friendly operating mechanisms.
    Simple but I am sure the gun crowd has a reason not to go this route, legitimate or not.

    Also, in reference to my comments on AR's and handguns...I am not against AR regulations at all, I just don't think they will accomplish much. When a pyscho can't carry 1 gun with 100 rounds, he will carry 10 guns with 10 each. Maybe we can cut the carnage a little bit, but I doubt it.

    ...
    Adam Lanza had 10 30-round clips for his Bushmaster and fired 153 rounds in 5 minutes. He swapped clips more than he needed to because investigators found 3 unused clips (90 rounds, total), plus several clips with ammo still present... which accounts for the other 57 unspent rounds). He had a total of 300 rounds, on his person, for use in one weapon.
    My guess... which I freely admit, is based purely on unfounded, wild speculation... is that Adam ran out of moving targets and did not have the mental capacity to hunt down more victims, hiding in terror behind locked doors. As horrible as this crime was... it had the potential of being far worse... in my (unsupportable) opinion.
    Post edited by Cosmo on
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • unsung said:

    why not just put metal detectors up at every public place?? that way no guns go into an area where they shouldn't go. like a school, or a bar, or an airport, etc.


    Or we could just put up signs that say "gun free zone", that'll work... oh wait.
    no, you want to make someplace safe, you put up metal detectors and people with guns are not allowed inside. it is that simple.

    these politicians are fucking cowards. they want people to be able to take their guns into bars, church, school, but i want to take my gun into the senate chamber to watch them debate legislation. why can't i do that? because they won't let me. fucking pussies.

    should we be allowed to take our guns into one of the houses of congress or the white house? a real 2nd amendment supporter would say yes.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    edited March 2014
    Jesus man, you are smarter than that.

    How is a metal detector going to stop anyone from bringing in a gun? Are you saying the Conn shooting wouldn't have happened?

    And yes. You can carry inside many state Capitol building iirc. Haven't heard of a shooting there.
    Post edited by unsung on
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487

    unsung said:

    JimmyV said:

    unsung said:

    Well he murdered his mother and stole that firearm so lets not pretend that it was legally obtained.

    And in doing so he exemplified how very dangerous these legally obtained firearms are to society. The gun was legally obtained by its owner...and then it was used by a psychopath to murder innocent children. Had the mother not legally obtained such weapons, many of those children in Newtown would still be alive today.
    You don't know that for certain.

    He committed about 35 felonies, how many more laws do you want him to break? All the laws written don't stop bad people from doing bad things.

    All your solution does is punish the law abiding... Yeah yeah yeah, I know, law abiding until they aren't.

    *looking for that dang roll eyes smiley*

    How exactly is it 'punishing' the law abiding? You could still shoot stuff with some other guns.

    So what do I, and millions of others do with our AR's and 30 rd standard capacity magazines?
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    do the same as our govt does. sell them to 3rd world terrorists above market price lol
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • Thirty Bills UnpaidThirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    edited March 2014
    unsung said:

    unsung said:

    JimmyV said:

    unsung said:

    Well he murdered his mother and stole that firearm so lets not pretend that it was legally obtained.

    And in doing so he exemplified how very dangerous these legally obtained firearms are to society. The gun was legally obtained by its owner...and then it was used by a psychopath to murder innocent children. Had the mother not legally obtained such weapons, many of those children in Newtown would still be alive today.
    You don't know that for certain.

    He committed about 35 felonies, how many more laws do you want him to break? All the laws written don't stop bad people from doing bad things.

    All your solution does is punish the law abiding... Yeah yeah yeah, I know, law abiding until they aren't.

    *looking for that dang roll eyes smiley*

    How exactly is it 'punishing' the law abiding? You could still shoot stuff with some other guns.

    So what do I, and millions of others do with our AR's and 30 rd standard capacity magazines?
    A buy back program.

    But remember... it's not just about you.
    Post edited by Thirty Bills Unpaid on
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    edited March 2014
    You are right. There's millions of these in the US as it is the most common sporting rifle made, plus the standard 30rd mag is also one of the top sellers. There could be 10 million or more owners of this particular rifle.

    What if nobody decides to sell?
    Post edited by unsung on
  • oysterjaroysterjar Posts: 1,235
    unsung said:

    You are right. There's millions of these in the US as it is the most common sporting rifle made, plus the standard 30rd mag is also one of the top sellers. There could be 10 million or more owners of this particular rifle.

    What if nobody decides to sell?

    If these were sold back to the government the "black market" would step up and run rampant. Thus it wouldn't be beneficial to resell to the government other than to "clear your name" with them.

    Wind this thing up.

  • callencallen Posts: 6,388
    That's the million dollar question. What's the best way forward? Smart guns?
    rgambs said:

    How about fingerprint identification on the safety? America is a place where Tylenol has to be in a child-safe container but guns have child-friendly operating mechanisms.
    Simple but I am sure the gun crowd has a reason not to go this route, legitimate or not.

    Also, in reference to my comments on AR's and handguns...I am not against AR regulations at all, I just don't think they will accomplish much. When a pyscho can't carry 1 gun with 100 rounds, he will carry 10 guns with 10 each. Maybe we can cut the carnage a little bit, but I doubt it.

    Yeah have come to same thought. Smart guns. We though have so many dumb guns but have to start somewhere.
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • callencallen Posts: 6,388
    unsung said:

    You are right. There's millions of these in the US as it is the most common sporting rifle made, plus the standard 30rd mag is also one of the top sellers. There could be 10 million or more owners of this particular rifle.

    What if nobody decides to sell?

    Make it a felony to be caught with it with mandatory time.
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,038
    unsung said:

    Jesus man, you are smarter than that.

    How is a metal detector going to stop anyone from bringing in a gun? Are you saying the Conn shooting wouldn't have happened?

    And yes. You can carry inside many state Capitol building iirc. Haven't heard of a shooting there.

    Really? You'd be insane to try and pack heat in CA's Capitol Building in Sacramento. They confiscated my Swiss Army knife during my last visit.

    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • brianlux said:

    unsung said:

    Jesus man, you are smarter than that.

    How is a metal detector going to stop anyone from bringing in a gun? Are you saying the Conn shooting wouldn't have happened?

    And yes. You can carry inside many state Capitol building iirc. Haven't heard of a shooting there.

    Really? You'd be insane to try and pack heat in CA's Capitol Building in Sacramento. They confiscated my Swiss Army knife during my last visit.

    exactly. these lawmakers want guns to be able to be carried anywhere except where the lawmakers work. they are scared.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    callen said:

    unsung said:

    You are right. There's millions of these in the US as it is the most common sporting rifle made, plus the standard 30rd mag is also one of the top sellers. There could be 10 million or more owners of this particular rifle.

    What if nobody decides to sell?

    Make it a felony to be caught with it with mandatory time.
    So let politicians turn millions of law abiding Americans into felons with the stroke of a pen?

    Better start building two things, prisons and morgues.

  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487

    brianlux said:

    unsung said:

    Jesus man, you are smarter than that.

    How is a metal detector going to stop anyone from bringing in a gun? Are you saying the Conn shooting wouldn't have happened?

    And yes. You can carry inside many state Capitol building iirc. Haven't heard of a shooting there.

    Really? You'd be insane to try and pack heat in CA's Capitol Building in Sacramento. They confiscated my Swiss Army knife during my last visit.

    exactly. these lawmakers want guns to be able to be carried anywhere except where the lawmakers work. they are scared.

    Perhaps their fear is justified, people are getting fed up.

    I don't condone violence as a first step, FYI.

  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    brianlux said:

    unsung said:

    Jesus man, you are smarter than that.

    How is a metal detector going to stop anyone from bringing in a gun? Are you saying the Conn shooting wouldn't have happened?

    And yes. You can carry inside many state Capitol building iirc. Haven't heard of a shooting there.

    Really? You'd be insane to try and pack heat in CA's Capitol Building in Sacramento. They confiscated my Swiss Army knife during my last visit.

    50 states, 50 sets of rules.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    unsung said:

    How exactly is it 'punishing' the law abiding? You could still shoot stuff with some other guns.

    So what do I, and millions of others do with our AR's and 30 rd standard capacity magazines?
    ...
    How about this...
    You go to your local licensed gun dealer and register your weapons, if you haven't already done so.
    ...
    That way, there is a method to trace the gun if it is ever used as evidence in a crime.
    It also makes YOU legally responsible for that weapon. Which means, if you are strapped for cash and want to unload your AR-15 with its 30 round magazines, you will have to go back to your local licensed gun shop and transfer the weapon's title to the new owner, after getting verification that the person you are selling it to is not a convicted felon and a known member of a street gang. That is better than making the transfer of your AR-15 to a person, unbeknownst to you, with a criminal record in the far, secluded corner of the Wal-Mart parking lot, like something out of a Quentin Tarrantino movie.
    Now, that weapon is his problem, no longer yours. You would be considered to be law abiding and responsible.

    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    I would not comply.
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    I think focusing on guns is never going to work. Lets focus all the private energy and capital used to lobby both for or against gun control on poverty. My hunch is we would reduce more gun related deaths and crime that way than making laws about which type of awesome killing tool you get to own and which kind you don't.

    The gun control debate resembles Jingly keys to me, just a useful distraction
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    unsung said:

    I would not comply.

    ...
    If that were the law... and you would not comply. Wouldn't that make you a criminal? i mean, you are asked to register your car. You comply with that, don't you?
    ...
    No one is asking you to surrender your weapon. It's just that we don't trust you, because we don't know you. I know that I would feel safer knowing there were armed, trainned and emotionally stable gun owners out there... not just any yahoo to claims to be.
    I mean, people use the guns va. cars comparison... how about we either licence the guns... or unlicense the cars.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    I didn't come across as unclear, did I?
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    In the meantime Ca Democrat that supports gun control decides it's more important to traffic illegal guns to gangs.

    So apologies if I don't give a shit what some politician says.


    http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/26/6271916/fbi-california-sen-leland-yee.html

  • unsung said:

    In the meantime Ca Democrat that supports gun control decides it's more important to traffic illegal guns to gangs.

    So apologies if I don't give a shit what some politician says.


    http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/26/6271916/fbi-california-sen-leland-yee.html

    What a goof. But we shouldn't be surprised by anything politicians do these days should we?
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    unsung said:

    I didn't come across as unclear, did I?

    ...
    No, you came across crystal clear. You would not abide if the law came into affect.
    Now... I have to ask... why wouldn't you?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487

    unsung said:

    In the meantime Ca Democrat that supports gun control decides it's more important to traffic illegal guns to gangs.

    So apologies if I don't give a shit what some politician says.


    http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/26/6271916/fbi-california-sen-leland-yee.html

    What a goof. But we shouldn't be surprised by anything politicians do these days should we?
    Not at all. But these are the guys that would turn me into a criminal because they want to take something away from me, and millions of others.

    I'm judged by people like that.

    Seems a bit unfair.
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    edited March 2014
    Cosmo said:

    unsung said:

    I didn't come across as unclear, did I?

    ...
    No, you came across crystal clear. You would not abide if the law came into affect.
    Now... I have to ask... why wouldn't you?
    Quite simply is that I'm not engaging in illegal activity and allowing politicians to do that should be grounds for punishing them, not the law abiding.

    I also believe that registration would lead to confiscation. I'm not a sex offender, I will not register like I were one. I'm doing no harm to anyone. Leave me alone.
    Post edited by unsung on
  • unsung said:

    Cosmo said:

    unsung said:

    I didn't come across as unclear, did I?

    ...
    No, you came across crystal clear. You would not abide if the law came into affect.
    Now... I have to ask... why wouldn't you?
    Quite simply is that I'm not engaging in illegal activity and allowing politicians to do that should be grounds for punishing them, not the law abiding.

    I also believe that registration would lead to confiscation. I'm not a sex offender, I will not register like I were one. I'm doing no harm to anyone. Leave me alone.
    Your last sentences are reasonable. To that end... like my opinion means anything... a moratorium on future sales has been another solution I have suggested in the past. Grandfather past sales, but do not introduce any more weapons into the fold.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    Well it's bigger than that. You'd be cutting off an industry that have countless of good paying jobs ending products that are primarily built in this country. You'd dump people on unemployment while killing the tax revenues that some if these states depend on.

    It can't just be that simple to stop making them.
Sign In or Register to comment.