As a gun owner, how do you feel about...

dutchswan

Member
Those who gun down innocent bystanders are law breakers. Law breakers by definition ... break the law. Therefore passing laws to stop law breakers is frankly dumb. However, law followers follow the law. The law says do not shoot anyone except in a situation in which your life is in danger. Therefore, I could have a 300rd drumb attached to my M4....and it is harmless in my hands because why? Because I am a law follower.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchswan http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/80#post_3355971
Those who gun down innocent bystanders are law breakers. Law breakers by definition ... break the law. Therefore passing laws to stop law breakers is frankly dumb. However, law followers follow the law. The law says do not shoot anyone except in a situation in which your life is in danger. Therefore, I could have a 300rd drumb attached to my M4....and it is harmless in my hands because why? Because I am a law follower.
Amazing how so many people on the left can't grasp such a simple concept. 1 out of every what, 100 thousand legal gun owners use their weapon to commit a crime but lets mess with the multitude of responsible gun owners rather than deal with the real problem.
 

mantisman51

Active Member
I was surprised, when I looked up gun deaths at the CDC website, that even they(they are very anti-gun ownership) admitted that accidental and suicide death by firearm was the majority of firearm deaths. Also, many years statistics show that more children die in sports related deaths than firearm deaths. Further, the Clinton DOJ study that was used as justification for the 1997 gun control law showed by their own study, guns were used in self defense 1.5 million times per year making guns a life-saver far more than life-takers. Also, over the last 50 years, while the number of guns has grown by 2-5 million each year, the murder rate has declined dramatically. Even the very liberal Oxford Journal study showed how deaths per 10000 has been cut nearly in half in the US during the same period. I have come to the conclusion that no facts will dissuade the left from their absolute paranoia of guns. It's more of a phobia than a paranoia, because facts show the shivering masses of leftists are far less likely to be victims of gun violence now, than ever. That means their fear is an illogical fear, with no facts to support it. I feel sorry for you leftists who live in this haze of terror over something that isn't even a problem. I have 22 acres 1 1/2 miles from the Mexican border. Please, my dear leftist friends, come to Southern Arizona and camp, unarmed on my property. I'm sure the drug gangs will see your gesture as an invitation to lay down their weapons and sit around the campfire singing "Cumbayah".
 

mantisman51

Active Member
I have heard several interviews with the folks at the scene and it was an extended 31 round magazine. He was tackled when attempting to reload. I will give you this much, if I knew that that it was not going to be used as the first round of a new attempt to disarm Americans, I would support limiting handgun clips to 16 rounds. But, we all know that it would simply be the first step in their attempt to steadily ban all guns.
 

reefraff

Active Member
I agree about the magazine sizes and what will happen if we allow laws limiting the size. The left will say that's a conspiracy theory yet those same people oppose parental notification laws for abortion or making it a crime to harm a fetus because they believe it's a foot in the door to outlaw the procedure.
 

dutchswan

Member
My carry weapon only holds 8 with one in the pipe, but I disagree with limiting magazine capacity. Do you know how long it takes me to seat a new magazine?...about 1 second. That means it takes me 3 seconds longer to shoot 30 rounds than someone else who has a 30 round magazine. Also, my LR-308 takes 20 round magazines and my M4 takes 30 round magazines. Do I NEED them? Maybe not now, but who is to say what is needed by anyone? You don't NEED a car, but we don't outlaw them, even though they kill way more people than guns.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchswan http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/80#post_3356240
My carry weapon only holds 8 with one in the pipe, but I disagree with limiting magazine capacity. Do you know how long it takes me to seat a new magazine?...about 1 second. That means it takes me 3 seconds longer to shoot 30 rounds than someone else who has a 30 round magazine. Also, my LR-308 takes 20 round magazines and my M4 takes 30 round magazines. Do I NEED them? Maybe not now, but who is to say what is needed by anyone? You don't NEED a car, but we don't outlaw them, even though they kill way more people than guns.
lol back in the day I made that car argument, after about 5 different posts they finally understood the analogy...
 
S

saxman

Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by oscardeuce http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/80#post_3356243
I know the answer! Make it illegal to murder someone. That will stop all the killing.
Gee...ya THINK???
THAT is the point the gun grabbers are missing. All more laws on the books do is make them feel better because they're "doing something
", and are generally knee-jerk reactions to unfortunate events. I remember when they passed the "military weapons" bill...it was so confusing that the cops were having trouble making sense of it. For instance, in CA, adding a pistol grip type stock (think M4/M16) to a rifle was against the law, as the rifle then became a "military weapon". You could have a non-detachable 30 rd magazine on a rifle, but if you removed a screw and made it detachable, again, it was a military weapon and illegal...just plain silly.
I have some pre-10 round law pistol mags that at the time were OK, because they were from before the law was passed...to be honest, I'm not sure if they finally did away with that or not, but you can get extended mags pretty easily, esp. if you're a crook, and as mentioned ad-nauseum, the crooks don't give a rat's a$$ about breaking the law.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Now this is awesome! If you want to know why I have strong negative feelings about Liberals. This is a classic example. The arrogance to think Bloomburg has any business butting his nose in another state. It is meddling.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110201/D9L3MSSO0.html
NEW YORK (AP) - Weeks after the shooting in Tucson, sellers at an Arizona gun show allowed undercover investigators hired by New York City to buy semiautomatic pistols even after they said they probably couldn't pass a background check, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday.
"After Tucson, you would think that people, particularly at a gun show in Arizona, would have been much more careful in enforcing the law," he said. "That unfortunately in some cases wasn't the case."
Bloomberg has authorized similar sting operations around the country as part of a push for tougher federal laws to help keep guns off the streets of New York.
But in the sensitive aftermath of the shooting Jan. 8 that killed six people and critically wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the mayor was questioned about the time and place of his hidden-camera investigation, a $100,000 operation conducted almost clear across the country.
"Let me get this straight: From New York City, they are going to send people to Arizona to look into this?" said state Sen. Ron Gould, a Republican. "They might take a look a little closer to home if they are concerned about guns getting in their state."
 

reefraff

Active Member
Another point. How many of those people actually sold a weapon? I never saw any cash or merchandise change hands. Just because the seller on tape didn't tell the guy to go pound sand doesnt mean when it comes right down to it they wouldn't have refused the sale. And I wonder how many sellers did tell them to get bent. I suspect we will never see those tapes. I wonder how much this political stunt cost the taxpayers of New York.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/80#post_3356255
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchswan
http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/80#post_3356240
My carry weapon only holds 8 with one in the pipe, but I disagree with limiting magazine capacity. Do you know how long it takes me to seat a new magazine?...about 1 second. That means it takes me 3 seconds longer to shoot 30 rounds than someone else who has a 30 round magazine. Also, my LR-308 takes 20 round magazines and my M4 takes 30 round magazines. Do I NEED them? Maybe not now, but who is to say what is needed by anyone? You don't NEED a car, but we don't outlaw them, even though they kill way more people than guns.
lol back in the day I made that car argument, after about 5 different posts they finally understood the analogy...
The old car analogy seems to be the favorite justification by the gun fanatics. The economy can go to crap, our eduactional system can be the worst in the world, but by God, don't mess with my guns!
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/80#post_3356097
I have heard several interviews with the folks at the scene and it was an extended 31 round magazine. He was tackled when attempting to reload. I will give you this much, if I knew that that it was not going to be used as the first round of a new attempt to disarm Americans, I would support limiting handgun clips to 16 rounds. But, we all know that it would simply be the first step in their attempt to steadily ban all guns.
You and stdreb have this "Leftisit/Liberal/Progressive" ideology stuck in your brains. Hate to burst your bubble, but there are actually just as many Conservative/Righties/Tea Baggers out there that have issues with what types of guns people should or can own. This isn't a left or right issue, it's a common sense one. Common sense states that there's no justification for a normal citizen in the country to own a fully-automatic, or even a semi-automatic weapon with huge magazines. The only justification you have for it is the writers of the Constitution deemed it necessary to allow citizens of this country to protect themselves from a tyranical government if need be. Of course, they were still reeling from a fight with the British as to who would run this country, so it's understandable why that added the 2nd Amendment. In today's world? Well after seeing what's going on in Egypt, Haiti, and Venezuela, you have a good argument. But honestly, what would an AK-47 with a 300-round drum magazine do for you if the Feds had our military take control of this country? You going to play Rambo and go out guns blazing while you get torn to shreds by a 50-cal bullet?
This last statement of yours sums up the paranoia of all gun activist. You have no problem limiting the access to some types of weapons. You just have this mortal fear that if you do bend and allow the Feds to restrict those guns, they'll push harder to restrict all guns. Unless some radical would be able to amend or repeal the 2nd, that could NEVER happen. Any politician that even hinted touching the 2nd would find himself/herself out of a job come next election. The NRA would make sure of that.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/80#post_3356715
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/80#post_3356097
I have heard several interviews with the folks at the scene and it was an extended 31 round magazine. He was tackled when attempting to reload. I will give you this much, if I knew that that it was not going to be used as the first round of a new attempt to disarm Americans, I would support limiting handgun clips to 16 rounds. But, we all know that it would simply be the first step in their attempt to steadily ban all guns.
You and stdreb have this "Leftisit/Liberal/Progressive" ideology stuck in your brains. Hate to burst your bubble, but there are actually just as many Conservative/Righties/Tea Baggers out there that have issues with what types of guns people should or can own. This isn't a left or right issue, it's a common sense one. Common sense states that there's no justification for a normal citizen in the country to own a fully-automatic, or even a semi-automatic weapon with huge magazines. The only justification you have for it is the writers of the Constitution deemed it necessary to allow citizens of this country to protect themselves from a tyranical government if need be. Of course, they were still reeling from a fight with the British as to who would run this country, so it's understandable why that added the 2nd Amendment. In today's world? Well after seeing what's going on in Egypt, Haiti, and Venezuela, you have a good argument. But honestly, what would an AK-47 with a 300-round drum magazine do for you if the Feds had our military take control of this country? You going to play Rambo and go out guns blazing while you get torn to shreds by a 50-cal bullet?
This last statement of yours sums up the paranoia of all gun activist. You have no problem limiting the access to some types of weapons. You just have this mortal fear that if you do bend and allow the Feds to restrict those guns, they'll push harder to restrict all guns. Unless some radical would be able to amend or repeal the 2nd, that could NEVER happen. Any politician that even hinted touching the 2nd would find himself/herself out of a job come next election. The NRA would make sure of that.
And they should be paranoid, because there are too many extremists like you, running around claiming to have common sense...
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/80#post_3356716
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/80#post_3356715
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/80#post_3356097
I have heard several interviews with the folks at the scene and it was an extended 31 round magazine. He was tackled when attempting to reload. I will give you this much, if I knew that that it was not going to be used as the first round of a new attempt to disarm Americans, I would support limiting handgun clips to 16 rounds. But, we all know that it would simply be the first step in their attempt to steadily ban all guns.
You and stdreb have this "Leftisit/Liberal/Progressive" ideology stuck in your brains. Hate to burst your bubble, but there are actually just as many Conservative/Righties/Tea Baggers out there that have issues with what types of guns people should or can own. This isn't a left or right issue, it's a common sense one. Common sense states that there's no justification for a normal citizen in the country to own a fully-automatic, or even a semi-automatic weapon with huge magazines. The only justification you have for it is the writers of the Constitution deemed it necessary to allow citizens of this country to protect themselves from a tyranical government if need be. Of course, they were still reeling from a fight with the British as to who would run this country, so it's understandable why that added the 2nd Amendment. In today's world? Well after seeing what's going on in Egypt, Haiti, and Venezuela, you have a good argument. But honestly, what would an AK-47 with a 300-round drum magazine do for you if the Feds had our military take control of this country? You going to play Rambo and go out guns blazing while you get torn to shreds by a 50-cal bullet?
This last statement of yours sums up the paranoia of all gun activist. You have no problem limiting the access to some types of weapons. You just have this mortal fear that if you do bend and allow the Feds to restrict those guns, they'll push harder to restrict all guns. Unless some radical would be able to amend or repeal the 2nd, that could NEVER happen. Any politician that even hinted touching the 2nd would find himself/herself out of a job come next election. The NRA would make sure of that.
And they should be paranoid, because there are too many extremists like you, running around claiming to have common sense...
I actually do. Based on the type of posts you push here on a daily basis, it's quite apparent you don't. But then again, you do live in Corpus...
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/80#post_3356717
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/80#post_3356716
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/80#post_3356715
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/80#post_3356097
I have heard several interviews with the folks at the scene and it was an extended 31 round magazine. He was tackled when attempting to reload. I will give you this much, if I knew that that it was not going to be used as the first round of a new attempt to disarm Americans, I would support limiting handgun clips to 16 rounds. But, we all know that it would simply be the first step in their attempt to steadily ban all guns.
You and stdreb have this "Leftisit/Liberal/Progressive" ideology stuck in your brains. Hate to burst your bubble, but there are actually just as many Conservative/Righties/Tea Baggers out there that have issues with what types of guns people should or can own. This isn't a left or right issue, it's a common sense one. Common sense states that there's no justification for a normal citizen in the country to own a fully-automatic, or even a semi-automatic weapon with huge magazines. The only justification you have for it is the writers of the Constitution deemed it necessary to allow citizens of this country to protect themselves from a tyranical government if need be. Of course, they were still reeling from a fight with the British as to who would run this country, so it's understandable why that added the 2nd Amendment. In today's world? Well after seeing what's going on in Egypt, Haiti, and Venezuela, you have a good argument. But honestly, what would an AK-47 with a 300-round drum magazine do for you if the Feds had our military take control of this country? You going to play Rambo and go out guns blazing while you get torn to shreds by a 50-cal bullet?
This last statement of yours sums up the paranoia of all gun activist. You have no problem limiting the access to some types of weapons. You just have this mortal fear that if you do bend and allow the Feds to restrict those guns, they'll push harder to restrict all guns. Unless some radical would be able to amend or repeal the 2nd, that could NEVER happen. Any politician that even hinted touching the 2nd would find himself/herself out of a job come next election. The NRA would make sure of that.
And they should be paranoid, because there are too many extremists like you, running around claiming to have common sense...
I actually do. Based on the type of posts you push here on a daily basis, it's quite apparent you don't. But then again, you do live in Corpus...
You don't see the hypocrazy (spelled crazy on purpose) of you claiming that the sanctimonious Baptists are out for your beer. While completely lambasting gun owners, and advocating federal intervention in individuals lives regarding how many bullets you can have in a clip, or what kind of gun you can or can't have. Then twisting and misdirecting any actual gun discussion, by somehow implying full auto's are legally out on the street as it is.
Although fortunately for true freedom loving Americans everywhere, you are correct about the political winds regarding Gun ownership. Not even Obama and his super majority of Democrats dared touch Americans constitutional right to own guns. (ironically, this point contradicts your previous idea that you love to promote saying that both sides think gun ownership should be significantly limited for the sake of common sense.)
 

reefraff

Active Member
The world according to Bionic is you can't have anything that MIGHT cause harm to others.
So everyone must drive cars about the same size as it will greatly reduce injuries from traffic accidents, after all you don't NEED a big fancy car and many people die in car accidents every year.
No more cosmetic or elective surgery. Many people die every year from surgical mistakes or complications and nobody NEEDS elective or cosmetic surgery.
No more swimming. Oh, you can can take swimming lessons in case you fall into water but after that no swimming. Many people drown every year and you don't NEED to swim so.....
Any one of the 3 items mentioned about would reduce more deaths each year than banning semi automatic firearms, many times more. In fact total gun deaths which include self defense and those shot by law enforcement are nearly half as many as those killed in car wrecks,
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/80#post_3356752
The world according to Bionic is you can't have anything that MIGHT cause harm to others.
So everyone must drive cars about the same size as it will greatly reduce injuries from traffic accidents, after all you don't NEED a big fancy car and many people die in car accidents every year.
No more cosmetic or elective surgery. Many people die every year from surgical mistakes or complications and nobody NEEDS elective or cosmetic surgery.
No more swimming. Oh, you can can take swimming lessons in case you fall into water but after that no swimming. Many people drown every year and you don't NEED to swim so.....
Any one of the 3 items mentioned about would reduce more deaths each year than banning semi automatic firearms, many times more. In fact total gun deaths which include self defense and those shot by law enforcement are nearly half as many as those killed in car wrecks,
I see reef keeps bringing up ridiculous analogies to justify his gun fix. You don't get it. None of the items you listed are designed specifically for the purpose of killing. Guns are.
Like I've told you NUMEROUS times. I've owned more guns in my lifetime than any one of you ever will. I've owned guns that are now deemed illegal to own. I still own guns. But if I lost the ability to own some weapon that is not intended to be owned by a normal citizen, I wouldn't go ballistic over it. You call me paranoid, yet you people are the one's all up in arms about how someone MAY come get your precious semi-auto, multi-clip, useless guns. I have more important things to worry about myself. What's comical is you whine about it, but I'm willing to bet that the majority of you that own some type of semi-automatic weapon only shoots the stupid thing 3 or 4 times a year. But by God, I have it if I need it. Just remember, if the day did come where the Feds tried to do some sort of miltary takeover of this country, who do you think they're going to shoot at first? The law abiding citizen whose minding their own business, or the crazed NRA nut that goes walking around with his AK-47 or AR-15 strapped on his side? All I can say to you reef is you either need to be a REAL good shot, or learn how to duck...
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/80#post_3356987
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/thread/383122/as-a-gun-owner-how-do-you-feel-about/80#post_3356752
The world according to Bionic is you can't have anything that MIGHT cause harm to others.
So everyone must drive cars about the same size as it will greatly reduce injuries from traffic accidents, after all you don't NEED a big fancy car and many people die in car accidents every year.
No more cosmetic or elective surgery. Many people die every year from surgical mistakes or complications and nobody NEEDS elective or cosmetic surgery.
No more swimming. Oh, you can can take swimming lessons in case you fall into water but after that no swimming. Many people drown every year and you don't NEED to swim so.....
Any one of the 3 items mentioned about would reduce more deaths each year than banning semi automatic firearms, many times more. In fact total gun deaths which include self defense and those shot by law enforcement are nearly half as many as those killed in car wrecks,
I see reef keeps bringing up ridiculous analogies to justify his gun fix. You don't get it. None of the items you listed are designed specifically for the purpose of killing. Guns are.
Like I've told you NUMEROUS times. I've owned more guns in my lifetime than any one of you ever will. I've owned guns that are now deemed illegal to own. I still own guns. But if I lost the ability to own some weapon that is not intended to be owned by a normal citizen, I wouldn't go ballistic over it. You call me paranoid, yet you people are the one's all up in arms about how someone MAY come get your precious semi-auto, multi-clip, useless guns. I have more important things to worry about myself. What's comical is you whine about it, but I'm willing to bet that the majority of you that own some type of semi-automatic weapon only shoots the stupid thing 3 or 4 times a year. But by God, I have it if I need it. Just remember, if the day did come where the Feds tried to do some sort of miltary takeover of this country, who do you think they're going to shoot at first? The law abiding citizen whose minding their own business, or the crazed NRA nut that goes walking around with his AK-47 or AR-15 strapped on his side? All I can say to you reef is you either need to be a REAL good shot, or learn how to duck...
LOL! You seem to be the one seeking to enhance the size of his "package" by bragging on his firearms. For the record, I own a total of 4 Semi Autos. 2 were deliberate purchases, an AR15 and 45 auto pistol. Have another 380 pistol that was passed down from my stepdad and a 45 glock that was traded for my old fish tank.
And you keep ignoring simple facts to justify your paranoia or whatever your issue is. Let me break out the crayons and draw you a picture.
US gun deaths in 2004
* 16,750 suicides (56% of all U.S. gun deaths)
* 11,624 homicides (40%)
* 649 unintentional shootings, 311 from legal intervention and 235 from undetermined intent (4%).
Lets say for the sake of argument semiauto firearms caused 60 percent of the homicides and undetermined intent deaths which I believe is quite a bit higher than the actual number. I'll even round up so lets say Semi autos account for 7,000 deaths. How many of those deaths would be prevented if you banned Semi autos? I'll be generous again and say half so 3500 deaths a year. Of those deaths how many are a result of use by those who lawfully own their gun and are a law abiding citizen? 5% or so? Maybe so a Semi Auto ban would save a few hundred lives a year.
in 2004 16,694 people died in known drunk driving incidents. No way of knowing how many where killed in HBD or unreported DUI incidents. That doesn't include the number of deaths at the hands of someone who shoots/stabs someone while drunk nor the number of deaths from alcohol related health issues that resulted in death that year.
But lets use a left wing statistics. You could save 12,273 deaths per year by banning semi autos. You could save 16,694 by banning alcohol. Why are you getting so emotional about banning guns? Common sense dictates you should be more worried about alcohol if your true concern is senseless death.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
I told you reef, I could honestly care less. You're the one on the tirade trying to justify why you need the access to guns, not me. Seriously, how detrimental would it be if you lost all access to guns? Could you still eat? Would you still have a roof over your head? Would you still have a job? Would you still have the same mode of transportation? It's this mortal fear you have that MAYBE, POSSIBLY, some bad person will come after you or your belongings, and you need the capability to protect yourself. My kids keep an aluminum baseball bat and a can of mace by their beds. My older daughter has mace and a tazer in her purse. Why? Because I wouldn't trust a gun in her hand. She's terrified of them. I've tried taking her to the gun range to shoot my pistol, and she won't touch it.
I kind of feel sorry for you that you live with this fear that you need to constantly look over your shoulder, wondering if that 'guy' might pull a gun or knife on you. It's called 'knowing your surroundings'. You don't walk around in the middle of the night in the bad neighborhoods. You walk in groups when possible. You park your vehicle in well lit areas where there's plenty of people around. You insure all your doors are locked, you have window locks, and even an alarm system on your house. There's nothing wrong with having a firearm for protection. I just don't see the logic behind having one that can be used to wipe out a small group with one pull of a trigger.
 
Top