Contact your Rep about gun control!

Tom Heath wrote: Signal to noise ratio is skewing unfavorably. Thread is at risk of lockdown.

Lock it. No one wants to talk intelligently about gun control... Its sad that it's turned into the same thing as an abortion debate.

-WHAT DO YOU WANT?

Well, I was told outside that...

-Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!

What?

-Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!

Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!

-OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.

Oh, I see, well, that explains it.

-Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.

Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.

-Not at all.

Thank You.

-(Under his breath) Stupid git!!

In reply to aircooled:

What can't be summed up with a Python skit...

Ignorant wrote:

Tom Heath wrote: Signal to noise ratio is skewing unfavorably. Thread is at risk of lockdown.

Lock it. No one wants to talk intelligently about gun control... Its sad that it's turned into the same thing as an abortion debate.

Pot/Kettle

MrJoshua wrote:

Ignorant wrote:

Tom Heath wrote: Signal to noise ratio is skewing unfavorably. Thread is at risk of lockdown.

Lock it. No one wants to talk intelligently about gun control... Its sad that it's turned into the same thing as an abortion debate.

Pot/Kettle

haw haw...

define the need for a 33 round magazine in a handgun.

I don't want to get rid of guns. I just think that people need to take some personal responsibility and be reasonable, but noone seems to want to do that.

Just from some of the arguments I have seen on this board it seems some people think that publishing classified government documents on the internet is a god given right but the AR15 in my gun safe somehow makes me a menace? Funny... talking out both sides of your mouth about "rights" makes me smile...

Ignorant wrote:

MrJoshua wrote:

Ignorant wrote:

Tom Heath wrote: Signal to noise ratio is skewing unfavorably. Thread is at risk of lockdown.

Lock it. No one wants to talk intelligently about gun control... Its sad that it's turned into the same thing as an abortion debate.

Pot/Kettle

haw haw... define the need for a 33 round magazine in a handgun. Military carry one? nope! Police? Nope! Can you conceal it for every day carry for legal defense of your property and life? Sure. But then I ask the question, Why are you such a poor shot that you need 33 rounds?

You need a 33 round mag if you want to fire 34 rounds before reloading. Duh.

Or maybe your pistol comes stock with 30 (close enough to 33) round magazines.

In reply to Ignorant:

To kill more babies without reloading of course.

ahutson03 wrote: Just from some of the arguments I have seen on this board it seems some people think that publishing classified government documents on the internet is a god given right but the AR15 in my gun safe somehow makes me a menace? Funny... talking out both sides of your mouth about "rights" makes me smile...

Did I say you were a menace? Nope.. I just personally believe those weapons are needed by citizens.

If we were to have a mandatory militia like switzerland.. OK.

I saw a link in another thread that I think really puts this debate into context:

http://tinyurl.com/y6gxlq9

It's a different way of looking at the issue. But if you don't think so, this one makes the same point differently:

http://tinyurl.com/2g9mqh

so put the same rules on semi-auto firearms that automatic firearms have? Because I know of quite a few hunting rifles that make most "black guns" look like Red Ryders.

ahutson03 wrote: so put the same rules on semi-auto firearms that automatic firearms have? Because I know of quite a few hunting rifles that make most "black guns" look like Red Ryders.

no the real point here is that when I proposed something that I consider to be reasonable... gun rights folks then twist it around to say that i believe they are a menace.

Not true.

Yes.. I know some hunting rifles are quite scary accurate. I worked at remington in Ilion. I've seen what those custom shop guys can turn out.

I guess heres another way of looking at it.. What is the real incremental benefit of 33 rounds in a handgun over say 10 or even 6 in a standard self defense situation? IIRC most situations are defused by just producing the weapon and holding the other person until the police arrive....

I think the other thing we are not addressing is that the current laws we have are ineffective, if most of the really scary "massacre" type shootings have had their weapons procured in a legal way. This kid was obviously distrubed, how do we keep them from getting a weapon.

Ignorant wrote: Did I say you were a menace? Nope.. I just personally believe those weapons are needed by citizens. If we were to have a mandatory militia like switzerland.. OK.

And we finally have the Freudian slip from GRMs greatest troll.

Lock it down.

z31maniac wrote: And we finally have the Freudian slip from GRMs greatest troll.

thank you..

http://www.amazon.com/Productive-Narcissist-Promise-Visionary-Leadership/dp/0767910230/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1294879159&sr=8-1

I resemble that book and am glad trolling is considered a great leadership quality by the worlds leading organizations.

Ignorant wrote: I don't want to get rid of guns. I just think that people need to take some personal responsibility and be reasonable, but noone seems to want to do that.

Wait a second hold on there, we need to take personal responsibility and be reasonable yet we need to have more government regulations to limit our access to the firearms that we have available? Does not compute.

If I'm going to be responsible for my actions then why do I need to have more regulations telling me what I can and cannot own? If I am being responsible then further regulations really are not needed. Heck maybe I want that 33 rd mag for going to the range and stretching out reload times. Just because I own an extended magazine does not mean that I'm going to be an idiot. Many gun owners and collectors have at least one odd ball goofy thing that they got just for the novelty of it all.

Just about any bolt gun I own will put a bigger hole from a greater range with far better accuracy than any "black gun" would. In fact if I had my choice I would much rather go up against the guy with the "super scary black gun" than the guy with a bolt gun. More than likely I would never see the guy with the bolt gun, if I can see the guy it increases my chances of being able to do something to save my butt and those around me.

Also you are aware (I hope) that the AR platform is quickly becoming one of the most popular hunting rifle platforms out there. Many companies are now producing AR based rifles specifically for hunting using just about any caliber you can think of.

Ignorant wrote:

MrJoshua wrote:

Ignorant wrote:

Tom Heath wrote: Signal to noise ratio is skewing unfavorably. Thread is at risk of lockdown.

Lock it. No one wants to talk intelligently about gun control... Its sad that it's turned into the same thing as an abortion debate.

Pot/Kettle

haw haw... define the need for a 33 round magazine in a handgun. I don't want to get rid of guns. I just think that people need to take some personal responsibility and be reasonable, but noone seems to want to do that.

then define your need for a big screen TV... or broadband internet... a car that exceeds the speed limit... ... seems far more people die due to cars...

And drunk driving in cars.

So we should outlaw alcohol as well, surely that would go well?

BTDT ... didn't work out so well

In reply to z31maniac:

Nah keep the alcohol and just get rid of the cars

Good on you Tifosi2k2 for trying to get things back on topic. This thread is starting to require hip waders

I need a 33 round clip because I am a crappy shot with a hand gun and sometimes the 33rd try is the charm.

The following I found on a Google search. Quotes like this are the reason I will never support any kind of gun control or regulation. It is a slippery slope that ends with disarmament of all citizens.

Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.

-- U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden, then-chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in a Nov. 18, 1993, Associated Press interview.

Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.

-- Sen. Dianne Feinstein quoted by AP on Nov. 18, 1993

We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We're going to beat guns into submission!

-- Rep. Charles Schumer on NBC Nightly News Nov. 30, 1993.

I'm personally all for taxing guns to pay for health care coverage.

-- Hillary Clinton quoted by the Nov. 4, 1993 New York Times

There is no reason for anyone in this country -- anyone except a police officer or a military person -- to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun ... The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution.

-- Michael Gardner, president of NBC News, in USA Today, January 16, 1992.

We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles ... that we are unable to think about reality.

-- Bill Clinton, President of the United States, March 11, 1993

My congressmen will be contacted. Thanks for the heads up.

sad that noone wants to involve me in a dialog beyond.. "You're an idiot, and we want no restrictions..

sad.

Ignorant wrote: sad that noone wants to involve me in a dialog beyond.. "You're an idiot, and we want no restrictions.. sad.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There isn't anything in the above about gun regulation, 33 round clips or automatic weapons. What is there to discuss. There is enough infringement already.

Do I think thirty plus round clips are necessary or needed, No. Am I arrogant enough to tell some else that they can't have one. No. Some people in this country are and if anything in this country needs to be controlled that's it.

Ignorant wrote: sad that noone wants to involve me in a dialog beyond.. "You're an idiot, and we want no restrictions.. sad.

Again the high horse from someone who was trying his darnedest to get us to say that we like killing babies.

MrJoshua wrote: Again the high horse from someone who was trying his darnedest to get us to say that we like killing babies.

Wait... what kind of babies?

Baby cows are darned tasty. I hear that baby pigs are too.

Seriously: I don't know what I think the best action is. I do believe that some amount of "gun control" is good. There are some pretty libertarian people here, but I doubt many people (if anyone) believes that any person should be able to purchase any weapon at any time. Should a child be allowed to purchase guns if they have the money? Should a person with a felony conviction or documented history of violent mental illness? Those are fairly extreme examples, but if you believe that a 6 year old or someone with a murder conviction shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, you believe in some amount of gun control, and it really is a "where do you draw the line?" game.

Personally, I think it's clear that a 33-round handgun clip has no practical purpose. It seems like a good idea to control something like that. Problem is: how? Where do you set a number saying that a certain amount of rounds is gratuitous in a certain type of firearm? Would such a law do more harm than good? I don't know the answer. I don't think anyone really does.

I do think that making snap legislations based on emotional arguments is not a healthy thing.

In reply to MrJoshua:

Nah, he's just trying to get the thread locked.