Gun control debate (merged)

#1,176
#1,176
lawgator1 said:
It's because the NRA is ruthless and irrational when it comes to any measure that would restrict guns. Far more leaders in government, even GOP ones, are very much in favor of gun restrictions, but they cower in the face of the NRA.
Click to expand...

In all seriousness LG...... Why are you such a gun poon?
 
#1,177
#1,177
Carl Pickens said:
It depends...... If the number of spineless liberal pu**ies surpasses those of us that hunt, fish and shoot by a significant margin then it very well could become an issue.
Click to expand...

Unless the United States decide on swift gun laws where potential some time in the future they would confiscate guns they would have to be willing to take them non peacefully. It would add to the violence they are so against. I'm willing to say it won't be an issue unless they want to start a actual war with its citizens. Now if they are willing to have that blood on there hands attempting to disarm our population (I refuse to believe our own service men would attack it's own people) it's all just drivel.
 
#1,178
#1,178
lawgator1 said:
It's because the NRA is ruthless and irrational when it comes to any measure that would restrict guns. Far more leaders in government, even GOP ones, are very much in favor of gun restrictions, but they cower in the face of the NRA.
Click to expand...

Now you're just trolling.
 
#1,179
#1,179
Los Angeles leading the way!

L.A. City Council bans large-capacity ammunition magazines - LA Times

Defying sharp warnings from gun rights groups, Los Angeles thrust itself into the national debate over gun control Tuesday, as city lawmakers voted unanimously to ban the possession of firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Such magazines have been “the common thread” in almost all the mass shootings that have devastated the country, from Newtown to Virginia Tech to Columbine, said Juliet Leftwich, legal director for the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Backers of the plan said it was a small but meaningful step to minimize the bloodshed, by forcing attackers to at least interrupt their rampages to stop and reload.
Click to expand...

This is a case in which I believe what's good for the goose is good for the gander as well:

Mayor Eric Garcetti said he was eager to sign the L.A. measure, which passed 12-0 with three council members absent. Even as city officials celebrated the newly passed restrictions, some gun control activists were dismayed to hear about a proposal to exempt retired police officers from the rules — an 11th-hour change sought by the union that represents Los Angeles police.
Click to expand...

What is good for me is not good for thee...and I completely disagree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,180
#1,180
Grand Vol said:
Los Angeles leading the way!

L.A. City Council bans large-capacity ammunition magazines - LA Times



This is a case in which I believe what's good for the goose is good for the gander as well:



What is good for me is not good for thee...and I completely disagree.
Click to expand...

if i lived in that communist state and i was part of a local gun club id go after them using the 14th amendment, we just saw it used successfully in the gay marriage issue. make it an issue again. "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privilages or immunites of the citizens of the united states.....) seems to me this fits the situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,181
#1,181
sofflavol said:
if i lived in that communist state and i was part of a local gun club id go after them using the 14th amendment, we just saw it used successfully in the gay marriage issue. make it an issue again. "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privilages or immunites of the citizens of the united states.....) seems to me this fits the situation.
Click to expand...

Double edged sword. The Heller decision already gave the right for "reasonable" restrictions which would include the magazine restrictions. It addressed the firearms "in common lawful use" only and not the ammunition or magazines. Else the NY SAFE Act would never have passed nor this in California. Or any number of other State laws that prohibit standard capacity magazines. So pushing the 14th on the issue means that a Federal Law like the 1994 AWB will need to be put in place. And that just gives gun grabbers the chance to make standard cap mags illegal for good this time instead of having a sunset like the previous attempt. And if that happened, the 14th means it applies to everyone, everywhere in the US and nobody can own them. I just don't trust the Federal Government to be objective about the matter.

I don't agree with magazine restrictions since it's not helpful at all so to speak. I can probably do as much or more damage with 4 eight round mags in my 1911 than some can with a happy stick in a Glock 17. I can take 10 round mags in an AR and still keep up pretty close with those with hundred round Beta-C mags. In fact, I only lost two seconds and shot a third of the rounds on a guy shooting a Surefire 60 during a competition. I had a standard Magpul and fired 20 rounds for a score of 19. He shot 60 rounds and had the same score. Increased magazines capacity =/= more killing if you know what you're doing.

Which is something LG and people like him will never and frankly don't want to understand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,182
#1,182
#1,184
#1,184
Carl Pickens said:
In all seriousness LG...... Why are you such a gun poon?
Click to expand...
He's a brain damaged liberal. (I know, repetitive) It's really easy to explain his views. Hell, he's going to vote for the most corrupt, narcissistic person to run for office since Barack Hussein Obama, and he thinks she'll be a great choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,185
#1,185
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,189
#1,189
Defying sharp warnings from gun rights groups, Los Angeles thrust itself into the national debate over gun control Tuesday, as city lawmakers voted unanimously to ban the possession of firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Such magazines have been “the common thread” in almost all the mass shootings that have devastated the country, from Newtown to Virginia Tech to Columbine, said Juliet Leftwich, legal director for the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Backers of the plan said it was a small but meaningful step to minimize the bloodshed, by forcing attackers to at least interrupt their rampages to stop and reload.
Click to expand...

If criminals will break the 'don't shoot people' laws, why does LA think they'll abide by the 'no large capacity mag' laws?
 
#1,190
#1,190
Professor Nono said:
Because they are going to try to frame it as a.........

"public health issue." And since there will be/is universal healthcare, there is a public interest in reducing the amount of gun injuries since that is a burden on the taxpayer. So, well, maybe an Executive Order goes down that all insurance companies have to ask about gun ownership and then rates will go sky high for those that own guns to pay for the healthcare of those hurt by guns. Just a offhand thought......
Click to expand...

More people die from heart disease so I see a ban on unhealthy food first before guns :crazy:
 
#1,191
#1,191
lawgator1 said:
It's because the NRA is ruthless and irrational when it comes to any measure that would restrict guns. Far more leaders in government, even GOP ones, are very much in favor of gun restrictions, but they cower in the face of the NRA.
Click to expand...

Good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,192
#1,192
#1,194
#1,194
Grand Vol said:
Hog! LG hacked your account!
Click to expand...

How so? How can LA or NY, CT or any other state or city restrict my magazine size? Since there is no restriction on capacities in the majority of states I should be equally protected in every state.
 
#1,195
#1,195
hog88 said:
How so? How can LA or NY, CT or any other state or city restrict my magazine size? Since there is no restriction on capacities in the majority of states I should be equally protected in every state.
Click to expand...

The 14th amendment only applies to certain things like gay marriage, there are no equal rights for gun issues. That's liberal logic anyway.
 
#1,197
#1,197
hog88 said:
How so? How can LA or NY, CT or any other state or city restrict my magazine size? Since there is no restriction on capacities in the majority of states I should be equally protected in every state.
Click to expand...


This phrase, "equal protection" .... I do not think it means what you think it means.

question-31842991.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top