Obama is going to use children as leverage

[Ruepart Hoaxley]

that reminds me. i need to install blow torches on my door knobs

See? NOW you're usin' yer brainbox.

In all seriousness, as much as people are freaking out and saying that guns are gonna get universally banned, it will never feasibly happen in our lifetime. Comparing Obama to Hitler and saying that he needs to be shot, while acceptable and all under free speech, certainly don't help the situation if you want to keep your guns... shit like that just makes it worse.

[HeavyMetal]

In all seriousness, as much as people are freaking out and saying that guns are gonna get universally banned, it will never feasibly happen in our lifetime.

Why?

And why should I be apathetic to it even if that statement was irrefutable fact? Should I not care for my future kids? Or the future in general? All this is is stepping stones. Even if Obama doesnt want to do it, framework is being laid for any number of future governments to make headway.

You are telling me there is no possible way guns will be banned in the next 60 years? I take it you dont follow world history? Or countries outside of the US?

[Ruepart Hoaxley]

I'm not saying be apathetic, I'm just saying the absurd amount of outrage is... well, absurd. Outrage does nothing, and there's far too little actually being done on the pro-gun side to counteract the loose cannons (pun not intended).

Did any of these other countries have any legal documents like the Constitution, and if so, did any of those have a clause like the Second Amendment? If they did, then okay, I'm wrong. But in a country where it's written into the very basis of our government that we as the populace are allowed to own guns for defense (personal and tyrannical), it's going to take a lot longer than a generation to eliminate them, if at all.

[HeavyMetal]

there's far too little actually being done on the pro-gun side to counteract the loose cannons (pun not intended).

Says who?

[Ruepart Hoaxley]

Says who?

Am I wrong that the proportion of "YOU CAN'T HAVE MY GUNS! 'MURICA" versus actual rational discussion is a little too far on the former?

Edit: Beside the point, the existence of any of the former makes the entire pro-gun debate look bad.

[HeavyMetal]

Am I wrong that the proportion of "YOU CAN'T HAVE MY GUNS! 'MURICA" versus actual rational discussion is a little too far on the former?

In my opinion, yes.

[HeavyMetal]

Edit: Beside the point, the existence of any of the former makes the entire pro-gun debate look bad.

Branching off of that, there is just as many if not more anti gun people on the polar opposite being ridiculous. There is no argument to be found in blaming either side's extreme.

I have yet to see one anti gun person present an argument that uses relevant facts to prove their opinion. It is all based on "guns cause death, kids died, you obviously dont care about kids or tragedies if you support guns"

[Ruepart Hoaxley]

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. And however ridiculous it is, it's still true. It's fine, I'll concede that point.

You haven't answered my other point, though.

[HeavyMetal]

You haven't answered my other point, though.

I just feel as though complacency breeds trouble. I have faith in our constitution, however I dont have blind faith in that it will be upheld simply because it is what it is.

Look at NY last night. They essentially (depending on your interpretation) overtly infringed the 2nd amendment. If it isnt "infringing" then it is pretty damn close, arguably close enough to be called what it is. The pieces are being put in place, and the media/government is crafting scenarios where the public can be sculpted into a certain way of thinking & feeling as such to generate the legislature they want. the proposed assault weapons ban is a blatant infringement, by any interpretation.

theres no tinfoil there, i challenge anyone to refute that.

[Ruepart Hoaxley]

I just feel as though complacency breeds trouble. I have faith in our constitution, however I dont have blind faith in that it will be upheld simply because it is what it is.

Look at NY last night. They essentially (depending on your interpretation) overtly infringed the 2nd amendment. If it isnt "infringing" then it is pretty damn close, arguably close enough to be called what it is. The pieces are being put in place, and the media/government is crafting scenarios where the public can be sculpted into a certain way of thinking & feeling as such to generate the legislature they want. the proposed assault weapons ban is a blatant infringement, by any interpretation.

theres no tinfoil there, i challenge anyone to refute that.

First part: neither do I. It's still there, though, which is more than can be said for almost any country that's had blanket gun bans put in place. (If I'm historically incorrect with that statement, I'm sorry, but a quick search didn't reveal anything similar to the Second Amendment in place in any of those countries prior to the ban)

Second part: I don't agree. Where in that legislation were guns being taken away (excluding the allowance for seizure from the mentally ill)? It limited magazines, not the guns themselves. Is that still bullshit? Yes, I think so. But as an interpretation of infringement of the Second Amendment, I say no. That's not to say I agree with it, but it's still not taking your guns away, just limiting how much comes out from the business end.

And let's face it- the most common home-defense weapons are a shotgun and a pistol, not many models of which (yes, I know there's models that have more, that's not the point) hold a whole lot more than seven rounds, not counting the chamber.

[HeavyMetal]

Second part: I don't agree. Where in that legislation were guns being taken away (excluding the allowance for seizure from the mentally ill)? It limited magazines, not the guns themselves. Is that still bullshit? Yes, I think so. But as an interpretation of infringement of the Second Amendment, I say no. That's not to say I agree with it, but it's still not taking your guns away, just limiting how much comes out from the business end.

The legislation (potentially) infringes on the right to bear arms.
Infringe:
"Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on"
Limiting millions of people from utilizing thousands of weapons IMO is infringing.

a pistol, not many models of which (yes, I know there's models that have more, that's not the point) hold a whole lot more than seven rounds

this alone showcases your firearm inexperience. A VAST amount of common every day pistols surpass 7 round magazines.

[Luke95]

The part that worries me is how will they get the magazines that are over 7 rounds?


Luke95

[Ruepart Hoaxley]

So you physically can't use a gun at all if restricted to seven rounds?

That's pretty much what you're saying.

A gun with the capability to fire more than seven rounds per mag is not rendered useless by limiting it to seven rounds per mag. Ergo, the gun can still be used, ergo the Second Amendment isn't being violated. Is it wrong that owners of high-capacity mags would probably have to turn in the magazines, with little and most likely no compensation for the cost? Yes. It's an infringement of your rights by taking away something you own. But the Second Amendment isn't being violated.

As to "everyday" pistols? The most common (not in any particular order) are the .38 Special, 1911-style .45 ACP semi-auto and 9mm's of various types, two of which hold seven or fewer rounds excluding the chamber (in most cases with the.45's). "Most common" to me implies that, out of gun-holding households, you'll be more likely to run into a 1911-style pistol or a .38 than a Desert Eagle or something that holds far more than 7 rounds.

[HeavyMetal]

As to "everyday" pistols? The most common (not in any particular order) are the .38 Special, 1911-style .45 ACP semi-auto and 9mm's of various types, two of which hold seven or fewer rounds excluding the chamber (in most cases with the.45's). "Most common" to me implies that, out of gun-holding households, you'll be more likely to run into a 1911-style pistol or a .38 than a Desert Eagle or something that holds far more than 7 rounds.

This paragraph is making me chuckle. None of this that you typed is actual fact, just random conjecture for the sake of your argument

[Buffalo Phil]

So you physically can't use a gun at all if restricted to seven rounds?

That's pretty much what you're saying.

A gun with the capability to fire more than seven rounds per mag is not rendered useless by limiting it to seven rounds per mag. Ergo, the gun can still be used, ergo the Second Amendment isn't being violated. Is it wrong that owners of high-capacity mags would probably have to turn in the magazines, with little and most likely no compensation for the cost? Yes. It's an infringement of your rights by taking away something you own. But the Second Amendment isn't being violated.

As to "everyday" pistols? The most common (not in any particular order) are the .38 Special, 1911-style .45 ACP semi-auto and 9mm's of various types, two of which hold seven or fewer rounds excluding the chamber (in most cases with the.45's). "Most common" to me implies that, out of gun-holding households, you'll be more likely to run into a 1911-style pistol or a .38 than a Desert Eagle or something that holds far more than 7 rounds.

The firearms are not rendered useless, but my 30 round magazine are.

If I wanted to shoot 7 rounds, I'll use one of my many Marlins. I want to use my PWA Commando with 30 round Pmags.

This isn't about capacity, it's about the government telling responsible citizens they are no longer responsible because of one act of domestic terrorism.

I thought you were a libertarian. What happened to that? Personal responsibility go out the window for you?

New York lawmakers turned average people into criminals with the stroke of a pen overnight. How does that sit well with you?