No need to say confiscate all weapons, but there’s no reason for civilians to have 30+ round magazines, and semi-auto rifles that CAN fire over 100 rounds per minute, fast as the trigger can be pulled.
There should be no need to panic over true “sporting” weapons or those legitimately used for hunting, with a maximum of 5 rounds in a magazine. But whether you say “military” or “assault” weapons, it isn’t the stocks, bayonet studs, or “looks” that make these killing machines powerful, but their rate of fire, and ammunition capacity. Target that, not just “guns”.
Outlaw guns and the next “Gun Massacre” will be by criminals breaking into people’s houses because they know the people inside are unarmed. Just like England, Australia, and Germany had happen when firearms were outlawed.
So, the Second Amendment says, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” I just realized it doesn’t actually say anything about bullets!Have all the guns you want, but anyone with bullets gets thrown away for life. Only slightly joking about that…
Just a note: “Keep and bear ARMS” does NOT say “firearms”. Arms in those days included swords, knives, cannons, not just muzzle loading muskets and pistols. Improvements like rifled barrels, cartridge ammunition, then auto-loading (even a semi-automatic IS auto-loading but the sere only allows one round fired per trigger pull) all increased the lethality of firearms since Hamilton caught the wrong end of Burr’s relatively inaccurate “dueling pistol”. BTW, most duels back then were NOT lethal, because of the marginal accuracy of those weapons. Swords were also generally to “first blood”, not the death. Maybe they WERE more “sophisticated” back then?
Dtroutma over 11 years ago
No need to say confiscate all weapons, but there’s no reason for civilians to have 30+ round magazines, and semi-auto rifles that CAN fire over 100 rounds per minute, fast as the trigger can be pulled.
There should be no need to panic over true “sporting” weapons or those legitimately used for hunting, with a maximum of 5 rounds in a magazine. But whether you say “military” or “assault” weapons, it isn’t the stocks, bayonet studs, or “looks” that make these killing machines powerful, but their rate of fire, and ammunition capacity. Target that, not just “guns”.
ARodney over 11 years ago
That’s all anyone IS targeting, dtroutma. The conservatives say it’s about taking away all your weapons, but they don’t pay much attention to reality.
zoidknight over 11 years ago
Outlaw guns and the next “Gun Massacre” will be by criminals breaking into people’s houses because they know the people inside are unarmed. Just like England, Australia, and Germany had happen when firearms were outlawed.
Uncle Joe Premium Member over 11 years ago
So, the Second Amendment says, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” I just realized it doesn’t actually say anything about bullets!Have all the guns you want, but anyone with bullets gets thrown away for life. Only slightly joking about that…
sw10mm over 11 years ago
There aren’t any good liberal causes that would accept blood money, are there? You propose a very bad theory.
Dtroutma over 11 years ago
Just a note: “Keep and bear ARMS” does NOT say “firearms”. Arms in those days included swords, knives, cannons, not just muzzle loading muskets and pistols. Improvements like rifled barrels, cartridge ammunition, then auto-loading (even a semi-automatic IS auto-loading but the sere only allows one round fired per trigger pull) all increased the lethality of firearms since Hamilton caught the wrong end of Burr’s relatively inaccurate “dueling pistol”. BTW, most duels back then were NOT lethal, because of the marginal accuracy of those weapons. Swords were also generally to “first blood”, not the death. Maybe they WERE more “sophisticated” back then?