^^ even if you somehow manage to do that, then what's an assault weapon? The previous definition was pretty worthless, and I don't know that there's really a way to make a better one. The simple fact is that there isn't really anything special about an AR or AK, etc, in terms of ability to conduct mass shootings, other than the proliferation of large magazines for them (which is a ship that has already sailed, and there are weapons generally recognized as sporting weapons that accept large mags.)

...and then people will just shoot lots of people with other guns. The worst one of these of all, at VA Tech, was perpetrated by a guy with a couple of common handguns.




^^^

1. and pay for it how?

2. you'd have to pay exorbitant prices to get a meaningful amount of them. These aren't dirt cheap, shitty weapons that people are gonna give up for a few hundred bucks. Goddamn, not one new restriction has even come close to being passed yet, and even common, basic AR-15s are selling for $2000+. You know well how supply/demand works...the more of them you buy back, the more expensive the remaining ones get--PLUS, you're competing with other citizens who would likely outbid the government to buy them up. At best, you'd still only succeed in driving the prices of them up, which is the same effect of the previous AWB, that proved to be otherwise utterly worthless.

...and is this really a responsible use of/printing of money? I dare say that if you wanted to spend five or ten billion dollars or whatever, you could do a staggering amount of more good elsewhere. Divorcing ourselves from the emotion and just looking at the number of people we'd save, an assault-weapon buy-back is a solution in search of a problem, and not a very good solution at that.

3. There are a lot of gun owners--and an even higher percentage of those who own AR/AK/etc rifles, who aren't giving them up for any price.

Quote :

"Except for the obvious difference: Cars are not designed to efficiently kill. Guns are explicitly designed to kill. You can make the argument that any tool can be used to kill, but let's be honest, one item is specifically intended for slaughter (and frequently used for that cause), and the other is not. "

Sure, but that has nothing to do with what I was trying to illustrate, which was to pre-empt any notion that there's anything special about Bushmaster-brand AR-15s. I was just saying that Bushmaster is a brand, like Colt or Remington or Winchester or Browning or whatever. It happens to be a lower-midgrade but big-name manufacturer, so they've sold a shitpile of them. That's the reason you see these shootings done with Bushmasters and not higher-end/boutique brands.


* and I don't make the knife argument. A knife can be a terribly devastating weapon, but on the whole, I'd surely rather have a gun if I wanted to kill a shitload of people quickly. There's a reason I had a drum-fed Saiga shotgun for home defense, not a hatchet (despite a hatchet or a butcher knife being brutally effective in its arena).

I'm just saying that it doesn't make any difference. Legally and practically speaking, guns are here to stay, in large quantities, and approaching the problem from the hardware angle is oppressive to the overwhelming majority of responsible owners, completely impossible, doomed to failure, and [b]at best a distraction from the few things that might help at least a little, and at worst guaranteed to drive a wedge between anti-gunners and people like me who are open to doing something, but want any measures to be both useful and tolerable.[b] The best thing to ever happen to assault weapon sales in the long term was the '94 AWB, and Senator Feinstein and President Obama have done more to proliferate gun production and ownership than the NRA could ever have dreamed to--and they haven't even done anything in a long time. The specter that drives this consumption and stockpiling is due to the tone of their approach, though. The NRA is crazy, but most gun owners are all for reasonable measures to keep guns out of the wrong hands (and many more could be coaxed to that way of thinking if the gun-banning tone was buried and a bridge of trust was built.

[Edited on December 27, 2012 at 1:07 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on December 27, 2012 at 1:10 PM. Reason : specter, not spectra.]

12/27/2012 12:53:52 PM

This isn't a problem that can be fixed short of drastically reducing the number of guns in circulation and completely undoing the enshrinement of guns as a symbol of freedom in our country. And since we know that won't happen why are we even talking about it? It will take centuries for change like this to come and by then we'll probably have destroyed ourselves anyway. We'll just have to deal with random killings in the interim.

That or round up everyone in FEMA camps...oh my god...

12/27/2012 1:02:21 PM

Bad car analogy. If the bushmaster was a car it would be a Honda civic. Gets the job done, cheap, and reliable.

12/27/2012 1:23:06 PM

Quote :

"even if you somehow manage to do that, then what's an assault weapon?"

You could make the distinction based on the calibre, size, and rate of fire.

Quote :

"...and then people will just shoot lots of people with other guns. The worst one of these of all, at VA Tech, was perpetrated by a guy with a couple of common handguns."

We could get rid of those as well considering their high rate of use in crimes and little practical use for hunting or home defense.

Quote :

"you'd have to pay exorbitant prices to get a meaningful amount of them. These aren't dirt cheap, shitty weapons that people are gonna give up for a few hundred bucks. Goddamn, not one new restriction has even come close to being passed yet, and even common, basic AR-15s are selling for $2000+. You know well how supply/demand works...the more of them you buy back, the more expensive the remaining ones get--PLUS, you're competing with other citizens who would likely outbid the government to buy them up. At best, you'd still only succeed in driving the prices of them up, which is the same effect of the previous AWB, that proved to be otherwise utterly worthless"

Tax owning them. There is a cost to society that comes along with those guns, gun owners should suffer that externality alone, not expect everyone to pick up the bill.

12/27/2012 1:24:23 PM

Seriously? You have to be kidding me. This is the USA, Home of the free. What the fuck makes anti gun people think they have the right to tell others what they can and can't have. You can't arbitrarily decide what gun I can use for self defense. If I want to use a M60, M4, AR, shit a RPG to protect myself its my right. Amendment #2

This is not Soviet Russia, Cuba, or some shit hole in Africa. The House, Senate, and president will never install a serious gun ban. (The all fear losing their jobs)

12/27/2012 1:29:01 PM

Handguns not valuable for home defense? How about personal defense? I am not walking down the street with my shotgun strapped to my hip or in my pocket...

And calibre to determine an assault rifle? A standard AR 15 is a basic .22 calibre bullet

12/27/2012 1:29:12 PM

Quote :

"I am not walking down the street with my shotgun strapped to my hip or in my pocket... "

Ok, don't. My recommendation would be that if you need such a weapon, don't walk down that street.

Quote :

"And calibre to determine an assault rifle? A standard AR 15 is a basic .22 calibre bullet"

That's where rate of fire comes in.

12/27/2012 1:38:59 PM

I don't even understand why people argue, when in the UK they don't have guns, and they have a lower crime rate. What is their to really argue about?

12/27/2012 1:40:13 PM

disco_stu

Quote :

"This isn't a problem that can be fixed short of drastically reducing the number of guns in circulation and completely undoing the enshrinement of guns as a symbol of freedom in our country."

BlackJesus

Quote :

"Seriously? You have to be kidding me. This is the USA, Home of the free. What the fuck makes anti gun people think they have the right to tell others what they can and can't have. You can't arbitrarily decide what gun I can use for self defense. If I want to use a M60, M4, AR, shit a RPG to protect myself its my right. Amendment #2 This is not Soviet Russia, Cuba, or some shit hole in Africa. The House, Senate, and president will never install a serious gun ban. (The all fear losing their jobs)"

QED

12/27/2012 1:50:51 PM

Quote :

"when in the UK ... they have a lower crime rate. "

No they don't.

12/27/2012 1:59:46 PM

That has been pointed out already in this thread, per capita.

12/27/2012 2:01:10 PM

You mean murder rate? Because as far as I can tell their crime rate is actually higher.

12/27/2012 2:04:21 PM

Just throw the gun away

12/27/2012 2:11:38 PM

Quote :

"and many more could be coaxed to that way of thinking if the gun-banning tone was buried and a bridge of trust was built."

This is not true, and I think you would admit that if you considered the evidence. Obama got an F grade from the Brady Campaign because of how lax he was on gun control during his first term before all of these incidents. He's done absolutely nothing up to this point to even suggest that he'd touch gun laws.

Wayne LaPierre, before making an ass out of himself by blaming video games for gun massacres -- made an even bigger ass out of himself when he claimed that Obama was engaging in a huge conspiracy to take people's gun's away with absolutely no basis for the claim

Quote :

"[I]n public, [President Obama will] remind us that he's put off calls from his party to renew the old Clinton [assault weapons] gun ban, he hasn't pushed for new gun control laws, and he'll even say he looked the other way when Congress passed a couple of minor pro-gun bills by huge majorities. The president will offer the Second Amendment lip service and hit the campaign trail saying he's actually been good for the Second Amendment. But it's a big fat stinking lie, just like all the other lies that have come out of this corrupt administration. It's all part -- it's all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment in our country. [...] Before the President was even sworn into office, they met and they hatched a conspiracy of public deception to try to guarantee his re-election in 2012. [...] And Obama himself is no fool. So when he got elected, they concocted a scheme to stay away from the gun issue, lull gun owners to sleep, and play us for fools in 2012. Well, gun owners are not fools, and we are not fooled. We see the president's strategy crystal clear: get re-elected, and with no other re-elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms freedom. Erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights and exorcise it from the U.S. Constitution. That's their agenda."

(http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-nra-chief-wayne-lapierre-claimed-massive-obama-conspiracy-to-not-regulate-guns-in-the-first-term-2012-12)

Many more cannot be swayed by building walls of trust, because one side is actively fanning the flames of paranoia and burning down those walls before they can even be put to use.

Every single time there is a mass shooting in this country, gun sales go up. Why would that be if this administration has done jack-dick about gun laws (including allowing guns into national parks and checked luggage on Amtrak)? Could it possibly be because these people are being lied to and warned of a "massive Obama conspiracy" to take their guns away by the leaders of the NRA (who, coincidentally, are put into place to represent the very gun manufacturers that make money during these panic purchases)?


You make the mistake of thinking that people are sensible and willing to change their beliefs in light of new evidence. They're not. They are fed the same bullcrap day in and day out:

Obama = bad.

Ipso facto, we must oppose everything he suggests, even if those suggestions are reasonable or benign.

12/27/2012 6:14:37 PM

Quote :

"The previous definition was pretty worthless, and I don't know that there's really a way to make a better one. "

that is amazingly lazy and willfully ignorant

[Edited on December 27, 2012 at 6:31 PM. Reason : .]

12/27/2012 6:30:57 PM

^^ Obama hasn't been aggressive in pursuing ANY progressive causes. The closest he's come is gay rights.

Other than that, he's a very tempered progressive. Of course, he never sold himself as such, but the way the right talks about him, youd think he was Castro.

12/27/2012 6:47:59 PM

Hey pro-firearm control activists, why a 10 round capacity? Why 10 rounds and not 5 or 15. What makes 10 the "go to" number?

Why reasons would you want to see a particular shapes/variants of stocks banned over others. Does the shape of the stock matter? The gun functions the same regardless of the shape of the stock...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_(firearms)#Anatomy_of_a_gunstock


I'm genuinely curious how these two pieces of proposed legislation will help with "gun control" and I want to understand the logic supporters have.

[Edited on December 27, 2012 at 7:45 PM. Reason : ,]

12/27/2012 7:45:28 PM

Guns don't protect people, people protect people.

12/27/2012 7:55:29 PM

Lets say a guy with a bushmaster with 5 10 round mags walks into a elementary school. Do we really think that him having to reload is gonna save lives?

Seriously it takes what 5 seconds to drop a clip and stick a new one in (if that).

12/27/2012 8:11:59 PM

The Newtown guy went to buy a gun but was rejected because if waiting period.

It seems eminently plausible that had he been thwarted from taking his moms guns, this massacre may not have happened.

It doesn't take much to set someone off, but it doesn't have to take much to cool someone down either.

12/27/2012 8:34:58 PM

^Point. Match. Series.

12/27/2012 8:40:57 PM

new senate bill:

Quote :

"Summary of 2013 legislation Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation: Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of: 120 specifically-named firearms; Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds. Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by: Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test; Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans. Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds. Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by: Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment; Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons. Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include: Background check of owner and any transferee; Type and serial number of the firearm; Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint; Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration. "

so all it does is raise the price of the guns. doesnt take any off the street and makes felons out of anyone that doesnt feel the need to register their guns. Not one school shooting would be prevented IMO


[Edited on December 27, 2012 at 9:18 PM. Reason : b]

12/27/2012 9:13:10 PM

Horseshit legislation that doesn't even make an attempt to figure out how to truly stop violence (why stop just gun violence?) and accomplishes nothing. Meanwhile our finances are sucking it up right now nationally. Great job Congress, best session yet!

12/27/2012 9:24:33 PM

Quote :

"Seriously it takes what 5 seconds to drop a clip and stick a new one in (if that)."

1.5 seconds for most of us

12/27/2012 9:26:04 PM

^^^^^ I heard he tried unsuccessfully 4 times. That was just word of mouth I heard, though .

Quote :

"This is not true, and I think you would admit that if you considered the evidence. Obama got an F grade from the Brady Campaign because of how lax he was on gun control during his first term before all of these incidents. He's done absolutely nothing up to this point to even suggest that he'd touch gun laws."

You're missing my point. I get that Obama has done nothing and spoken little about attacking 2A rights, and that the fear (until recently) has been silly and irrational.

I'm saying that regulating guns is, for a variety of reasons, not the answer. Yes, the NRA is extreme and crazy, but not everyone is like that. People like me wouldn't be freaked out by reasonable restrictions on firearm ownership aimed at keeping them out of the wrong hands. People like me--who rolled their eyes at people hording ammo after the '08 election, and get angry when the NRA is needlessly obstinate and stokes the flames of paranoia, DO get freaked out when the rhetoric is about restricting guns themselves, or when the rhetoric is negative on guns themselves or ownership (and spare me the "I respect the 2A and hunters and shit, but...). People like me join the NRA despite a certain amount of disdain for the organization due to the alternative. Hell, I bought another pistol today and plan to order several rifles and a shotgun tomorrow.

The biggest thing, though, is that attacking guns themselves at this stage is too little, too late. That window of opportunity, if it was ever desirable, passed decades ago.




[Edited on December 27, 2012 at 9:28 PM. Reason : ]

12/27/2012 9:27:19 PM

Quote :

"You could make the distinction based on the calibre, size, and rate of fire."

No, you really couldn't...not without banning everything.

Caliber and size are the same thing, unless you mean case capacity...but whatever, either way, we we commonly refer to as "assault weapons" are almost uniformly small and not very powerful. That pretty much leaves rate of fire, to which I offer granddad's pump-action hunting shotgun as an example:



I deliberately didn't choose clips of any pro shooters or instructors who are even faster. This is just some regular dude.

...or how about grandpa's lever-action hunting rifle?



Again, some regular Joe, and the rifle is a Winchester Model 94, which dates back to, you guessed it, 1894.

So caliber, size (whatever that is), and rate of fire are out. About the only thing that leaves is magazine capacity, which is, like I said to start with, the only feature of an AR-15 or AK-47 that makes it particularly useful for a mass shooting. It isn't a feature unique to these types of weapons, but they're probably the most common weapons that commonly have large mags. So, I even offered, fuck it, ban the magazines if it'll make you feel good. It won't do a goddamn bit of good, but whatever. You could kill the shit out of a crowd with a jacket full of 10-rounders, or if you wanted the bigger ones, they are so plentiful that it'd still be easy to get them. If the ship has sailed on banning guns, it's sailed 10x over on banning the magazines. I have a bunch of them. A dude gave me some more of them just today. He gave them to me because he has, like, fucking a hundred or more of them. They're like $14 each if you buy them, and if you ban them, what, maybe you drive the price up to $50 or something? That's not going to stop anyone if he wants to shoot up a crowd and use a large magazine to do it.

Quote :

"We could get rid of those as well considering their high rate of use in crimes and little practical use for hunting or home defense."

First of all, you aren't going to ban handguns, so this discussion is utterly moot.

...but if you did, again, there are a fucking bajillion of them out there already, to say nothing of black markets that would pop up.

and if you somehow banned them, which SCOTUS would never allow and Congress would never vote for, and there wasn't an armed revolt, and if Congress wasn't immediately voted out in the next election on a scale that would dwarf what happened after the '94 AWB, and if you somehow managed to confiscate them, and if you prevented any more from being smuggled in alongside the people and drugs we're doing so well at stopping now, THEN people would just shoot the place up with grandpa's shotgun and hunting rifle, and as you can see in those YouTube clips, they'd still kill the shit out of a lot of people (and those weapons are generally significantly more powerful, too).

Quote :

"Tax owning them. There is a cost to society that comes along with those guns, gun owners should suffer that externality alone, not expect everyone to pick up the bill. "

Again, how? The only guns that the government knows the location of are NFA weapons (machine guns, short-barreled shotguns/rifles, and suppressors). These are an inconsequential handful, AND they're already taxed.

How are you going to tax gun ownership when you don't know what's out there, let alone where they are?

12/27/2012 9:49:06 PM

Quote :

"that is amazingly lazy and willfully ignorant"

No, it is not. It's reality.

Come on, you know that there is no functional difference that sets these weapons apart or makes them any more lethal than any other gun (and in some ways, they are less so), other than magazine capacity, and we've already been over that.

12/27/2012 9:55:29 PM

I think you might be inflating the number of people like you there actually are.

I mean, I guess it's a possibility that there's a silent majority of pro-gun people who want sensible legislation, but I haven't heard anything to suggest that that's the case.

Quote :

" I get that Obama has done nothing and spoken little about attacking 2A rights, and that the fear (until recently) has been silly and irrational"

...

Quote :

"People like me--who rolled their eyes at people hording ammo after the '08 election, and get angry when the NRA is needlessly obstinate and stokes the flames of paranoia, DO get freaked out when the rhetoric is about restricting guns themselves"

Why is this time different?

Nothing happened after Columbine. Nothing happened after Virginia Tech. Nothing happened after Fort Hood. Nothing happened after Gabby Giffords and Tucson. Nothing happened after Aurora, Colorado. Nothing happened after the Sikh Temple, or the Oregon mall.


Nothing is going to happen. NOTHING.

You still won't be able to get on a plane with bottled water, though. And don't forget to spread your cheeks and lift your sack next time you go through the x-ray machine.

12/27/2012 10:09:48 PM

What about requiring weapons to have individual trigger locks when being stored, and punishing owners if someone in their household acquires and misuses their weapon?

12/27/2012 10:37:23 PM

Quote :

"What about requiring weapons to have individual trigger locks when being stored"

Every firearm sold comes with a breach cable locks and/or trigger locks, making it impossible to load and fire the firearm.

Quote :

"punishing owners if someone in their household acquires and misuses their weapon? "

If a child gets a hold of a weapon and misuses it, the owner(s) of the firearm are already punished by law. If it's another adult in the household, then it's considered theft as an adult (should) know right from wrong (stealing is already illegal, but again that doesn't stop criminals from doing so).

These policies/laws that you mentioned are already in place. A LAW is not the end all be all here. Just because it's law doesn't mean it's going to magically happen, just like a LAW (or a sign) saying "GUN FREE ZONE" or "NO GUNS HERE" doesn't magically stop criminals from bringing one anyways.

[Edited on December 28, 2012 at 1:14 AM. Reason : /]

12/28/2012 1:10:33 AM

The problem is the dichotomy that you hold (and that I once held) between the mysterious, murderous "criminal" types who can't really be stopped whatever the law or property-owner's restrictions may say, and the "law-abiding citizen" types who will never ever be tempted, no siree Bob, to use their lawfully-acquired and lawfully-carried firearms in unlawful ways when they are brought to anger or spooked into (often misguided) self-defense: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/24/opinion/frum-nra-nightmare-vision/index.html

Quote :

"A majority of the reported self defense gun uses were rated as probably illegal by a majority of judges. This was so even under the assumption that the respondent had a permit to own and carry the gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly."

Full study here: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263.full

An examination of the weaknesses of current firearm regulations can be found here; way too many things that most people think are already banned actually aren't: http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/WhitePaper102512_CGPR.pdf

12/28/2012 2:44:20 AM

^^ clearly they aren't enforced or taken seriously enough.

12/28/2012 2:58:22 AM

^Some of the laws are written precisely so they'll be difficult to enforce; from that PDF I linked to...

Quote :

"Federal gun policies adopted first in 2003, and known as the Tiahrt amendments, after the legislation's sponsor, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS), limit public access to crime gun trace data, prohibit the use of gun trace data in hearings pertaining to licensure of gun dealers and litigation against gun dealers, and restrict ATF's authority to require gun dealers to conduct a physical inventory of their firearms."

Also the old AWB was written to allow manufacturers to easily circumvent it, by taking advantage of the silly stylistic restrictions mentioned earlier in this thread.

12/28/2012 3:13:55 AM

Yeah if anything this bill is just another tax.

it will be shot down... ohh yess it will be shot down...


$200 bucks to own the guns i already have... each...

the words "fuck you" come to mind... with your retroactive taxing.

then registering my gun... this seems more like something done just incase we have to impart martial law... they know who to un-arm. because having a gun registered so it is tracked... does nothing to prevent it from being used improperly.

I'm cool with a background check on new sales...
i would be cooler with a mandatory class taught by someone trained to spot the crazies.


I really feel that THIS bill is essentially banning ferraris without thinking about offering people "drivers ed".

12/28/2012 8:05:42 AM

^Already background checks on new sales.

12/28/2012 8:27:51 AM

Quote :

"You mean murder rate? Because as far as I can tell their crime rate is actually higher."

I'm pretty sure they were referring to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Otherwise you would have to believe that having guns causes more people to fight, which I don't think is the case.

Quote :

"Hey pro-firearm control activists, why a 10 round capacity? Why 10 rounds and not 5 or 15. What makes 10 the "go to" number?"

Good point, let's make it 1.

Quote :

"Lets say a guy with a bushmaster with 5 10 round mags walks into a elementary school. Do we really think that him having to reload is gonna save lives? Seriously it takes what 5 seconds to drop a clip and stick a new one in (if that)."

It might not slow them down a lot, but it would slow them down a little bit.

Quote :

"Caliber and size are the same thing, unless you mean case capacity"

I was referring to physical size, in order to stop handguns or easily concealable weapons.

Quote :

"That pretty much leaves rate of fire, to which I offer granddad's pump-action hunting shotgun as an example"

that would clearly not be a very effective way to try to kill a large group of people, so it's irrelevant.

Quote :

"and if you somehow banned them, which SCOTUS would never allow and Congress would never vote for"

Handguns aren't protected under the constitution. It may be unlikely to happen, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Quote :

"and there wasn't an armed revolt"

ha

Quote :

"and if Congress wasn't immediately voted out in the next election on a scale that would dwarf what happened after the '94 AWB"

The public opinion on this is starting to come around.

Quote :

"Again, how? The only guns that the government knows the location of are NFA weapons (machine guns, short-barreled shotguns/rifles, and suppressors). These are an inconsequential handful, AND they're already taxed."

That only speaks to this method's effectiveness. Make registration required by law. Make those who own firearms pay a tax for each one, allow them to sell the gun back if they can't afford it or fail to pay.

12/28/2012 9:14:31 AM

Quote :

"that would clearly not be a very effective way to try to kill a large group of people, so it's irrelevant."

It was clearly not very effective in Aurora...

12/28/2012 9:55:35 AM

It wasn't all he used, if it had been, those shootings wouldn't have been nearly as bad.

12/28/2012 9:59:20 AM

it did have the highest death count IIRC.

the ar jammed

pump shotgun in closed quarters can do some serious damage.

Pistols you have to be so close they should be easier to control in close quarters.
By that i mean you have to enter an event to use one there...

12/28/2012 11:05:13 AM

Quote :

"The public opinion on this is starting to come around."

lol, there are FAR mor gun owners now than in 94, especially owners of "Assault Weapons"

12/28/2012 11:07:13 AM

Quote :

"lol, there are FAR mor gun owners now than in 94, especially owners of "Assault Weapons""

I don't think that's accurate. Source?

From what I've heard there are far more guns, but fewer owners.

12/28/2012 11:19:07 AM

i feel that games like call of duty haven't increased the violence in our youth any but has increased the number of guns at the shooting range.

everyone i play with owns something from an ar, m14, fal etc.
a couple own the $texas guns sm901,fn scar, acr etc.

12/28/2012 11:25:46 AM

Quote :

"it did have the highest death count IIRC"

No.
"he relied mostly on the AR-15"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/22/a-look-at-the-aurora-shooter-s-guns-including-the-ar-15.html

12/28/2012 11:31:55 AM

Quote :

" then registering my gun... this seems more like something done just incase we have to impart martial law... they know who to un-arm. "

I sincerely feel sorry for people with this mindset. You're not going to out-arm the state, you fucking lunatic. We have the most advanced military the world has ever seen. Do you seriously think a military that currently kills people across the globe by pressing a button in an air conditioned room in Nevada feels threatened by your shotgun? This government currently has the authority to monitor your emails, suspend your due process, and detain you indefinitely if they want to. And you think your gun is going to protect you?

Are you mental?

[Edited on December 28, 2012 at 12:31 PM. Reason : good luck, champ.]

12/28/2012 12:29:59 PM

^ you type that, and then say that guns aren't needed? I think that is exactly why the 2A was written

12/28/2012 1:08:25 PM

Then what the fuck are you waiting for?

12/28/2012 1:23:12 PM

Please, give me some evidence that the police are going to take away all of your freedoms like the red coats did?

It isn't even remotely the same situation. Back then, we were in somebody else's court. Now, we got our own judicial system with our own representatives that would fight for us, and people still think that some government man is going to come take our guns away and imprison us.. it is just paranoia.

12/28/2012 1:29:10 PM

Paranoia fueled by interests (the NRA, Fox News) that benefit from the paranoia. It's hilarious.

12/28/2012 2:05:32 PM

Quote :

"our own representatives that would fight for us"

rofl

Quote :

"and people still think that some government man is going to come take our guns away and imprison us"

ask the folks in Australia

12/28/2012 2:22:11 PM

Quote :

" Then what the fuck are you waiting for? "

They're like frogs being boiled.

12/28/2012 2:52:56 PM