Another idiot with a gun

[HAL 9000 96]

and before anyone else decides to fire rounds my way, i'm all for someone losing their firearms on the first incident of domestic violence........

VERY GOOD. That is called being contextual. See? Not too hard.

[The Dude 206]

yes, you did agree with natty's post. or do you just run off and post without thinking about the ramifications?

now tell me what's so special about a high capacity magazine? a bit of practice and one can swap out magazines in a very short time. that is, after all, what they were designed for.

ammo piercing ammo is already banned for private use. surely you knew that, didn't you? no?

as for sharing information between state and federal government, you might check out the brady bill and what it requires. it's already in effect, although as from the story in the op, not effectively.

and before anyone else decides to fire rounds my way, i'm all for someone losing their firearms on the first incident of domestic violence........

First sane thing you've said all day

As who my employer is, I'm privy to quite a bit of info that I can't share. However, I can tell you charles that there are companies out there that still produce those rounds. They simply modify one aspect of them and sell them under the radar. Yes, I do agree that someone trained could reload smaller magazines quickly enough that they could pump out almost as many rounds as a high capacity. However, I'm not worried so much about those with that sort of training. Someone with law enforcement, or military training could do a lot more damage with a lot less than your average citizen. Those people are also a lot smaller in number.

How can you honestly defend having high capacity magazines or assault rifles?

[Ban Hammer 14,251]

Yet it is your LP that is apparently scratched... repeating the same strange obsession with an infringement on rights that is as far away from any contextual truth as there can be.

Get a grip... you have no factual nor rational basis, so you are starting to resort to the more classical childish technique. Please don't go there.

If I've already stated that no rights are abdicated (right to own guns unless you're stark mad), and you insist I am... then clearly you do seem to have a problem with thinking things through...

perhaps you need to get a grip and realize you're giving away by advocating some test by some panel - right of innocence before presumed guilty. right to a jury of your peers. right to due process. but no, i'm the one you think is crazy

[Ban Hammer 14,251]

yes, you did agree with natty's post. or do you just run off and post without thinking about the ramifications?

now tell me what's so special about a high capacity magazine? a bit of practice and one can swap out magazines in a very short time. that is, after all, what they were designed for.

ammo piercing ammo is already banned for private use. surely you knew that, didn't you? no?

as for sharing information between state and federal government, you might check out the brady bill and what it requires. it's already in effect, although as from the story in the op, not effectively.

and before anyone else decides to fire rounds my way, i'm all for someone losing their firearms on the first incident of domestic violence........

First sane thing you've said all day

As who my employer is, I'm privy to quite a bit of info that I can't share. However, I can tell you charles that there are companies out there that still produce those rounds. They simply modify one aspect of them and sell them under the radar. Yes, I do agree that someone trained could reload smaller magazines quickly enough that they could pump out almost as many rounds as a high capacity. However, I'm not worried so much about those with that sort of training. Someone with law enforcement, or military training could do a lot more damage with a lot less than your average citizen. Those people are also a lot smaller in number.

How can you honestly defend having high capacity magazines or assault rifles?

now we're off on assault rifles.......

and somewhere on vj i've posted before two pics and asked for people to identify the "assault rifle" funny thing was, only those familiar with guns knew the answer.

it was the same gun, just cosmetic modifications were made.

[john & jean 37]

Yet it is your LP that is apparently scratched... repeating the same strange obsession with an infringement on rights that is as far away from any contextual truth as there can be.

Get a grip... you have no factual nor rational basis, so you are starting to resort to the more classical childish technique. Please don't go there.

If I've already stated that no rights are abdicated (right to own guns unless you're stark mad), and you insist I am... then clearly you do seem to have a problem with thinking things through...

perhaps you need to get a grip and realize you're giving away by advocating some test by some panel - right of innocence before presumed guilty. right to a jury of your peers. right to due process. but no, i'm the one you think is crazy

not to mention the millions who have died defending these constitutional rights

[The Dude 206]

yes, you did agree with natty's post. or do you just run off and post without thinking about the ramifications?

now tell me what's so special about a high capacity magazine? a bit of practice and one can swap out magazines in a very short time. that is, after all, what they were designed for.

ammo piercing ammo is already banned for private use. surely you knew that, didn't you? no?

as for sharing information between state and federal government, you might check out the brady bill and what it requires. it's already in effect, although as from the story in the op, not effectively.

and before anyone else decides to fire rounds my way, i'm all for someone losing their firearms on the first incident of domestic violence........

First sane thing you've said all day

As who my employer is, I'm privy to quite a bit of info that I can't share. However, I can tell you charles that there are companies out there that still produce those rounds. They simply modify one aspect of them and sell them under the radar. Yes, I do agree that someone trained could reload smaller magazines quickly enough that they could pump out almost as many rounds as a high capacity. However, I'm not worried so much about those with that sort of training. Someone with law enforcement, or military training could do a lot more damage with a lot less than your average citizen. Those people are also a lot smaller in number.

How can you honestly defend having high capacity magazines or assault rifles?

now we're off on assault rifles.......

and somewhere on vj i've posted before two pics and asked for people to identify the "assault rifle" funny thing was, only those familiar with guns knew the answer.

it was the same gun, just cosmetic modifications were made.

Nice red herring there Charles, but you dont' address anything pertinent. I define assault rifle by it's function, not its form.

[HAL 9000 96]

Yet it is your LP that is apparently scratched... repeating the same strange obsession with an infringement on rights that is as far away from any contextual truth as there can be.

Get a grip... you have no factual nor rational basis, so you are starting to resort to the more classical childish technique. Please don't go there.

If I've already stated that no rights are abdicated (right to own guns unless you're stark mad), and you insist I am... then clearly you do seem to have a problem with thinking things through...

perhaps you need to get a grip and realize you're giving away by advocating some test by some panel - right of innocence before presumed guilty. right to a jury of your peers. right to due process. but no, i'm the one you think is crazy

And what does that test entail? Get a grip indeed.

Once again you're making sh!t up Charles. I already told you I'm willing to take that hypothetical test with you. You can't presume guilt and by innocent at the same time, Charles- that's nonsensical.

It would lead someone to 'insinuate' as you say... that perhaps there is something you are afraid of having discovered about you. Now I could assume you'll stick your foot in your mouth again and say I stated that I am saying that you are hiding something.

Such is the reactionary mindset... never really thinking things through before reflexing a reaction.

yes, you did agree with natty's post. or do you just run off and post without thinking about the ramifications?

now tell me what's so special about a high capacity magazine? a bit of practice and one can swap out magazines in a very short time. that is, after all, what they were designed for.

ammo piercing ammo is already banned for private use. surely you knew that, didn't you? no?

as for sharing information between state and federal government, you might check out the brady bill and what it requires. it's already in effect, although as from the story in the op, not effectively.

and before anyone else decides to fire rounds my way, i'm all for someone losing their firearms on the first incident of domestic violence........

First sane thing you've said all day

As who my employer is, I'm privy to quite a bit of info that I can't share. However, I can tell you charles that there are companies out there that still produce those rounds. They simply modify one aspect of them and sell them under the radar. Yes, I do agree that someone trained could reload smaller magazines quickly enough that they could pump out almost as many rounds as a high capacity. However, I'm not worried so much about those with that sort of training. Someone with law enforcement, or military training could do a lot more damage with a lot less than your average citizen. Those people are also a lot smaller in number.

How can you honestly defend having high capacity magazines or assault rifles?

now we're off on assault rifles.......

and somewhere on vj i've posted before two pics and asked for people to identify the "assault rifle" funny thing was, only those familiar with guns knew the answer.

it was the same gun, just cosmetic modifications were made.

I believe I was the one that answered that one correctly.

Yet it is your LP that is apparently scratched... repeating the same strange obsession with an infringement on rights that is as far away from any contextual truth as there can be.

Get a grip... you have no factual nor rational basis, so you are starting to resort to the more classical childish technique. Please don't go there.

If I've already stated that no rights are abdicated (right to own guns unless you're stark mad), and you insist I am... then clearly you do seem to have a problem with thinking things through...

perhaps you need to get a grip and realize you're giving away by advocating some test by some panel - right of innocence before presumed guilty. right to a jury of your peers. right to due process. but no, i'm the one you think is crazy

not to mention the millions who have died defending these constitutional rights

Of course. On the streets against the evil government.

Or was it that we're supposed to have these rights to protect us from those sworn to uphold and protect those same rights?

Things get fuzzy right? And millions have died to do that?

Edited September 8, 2009 by HAL 9000

[john & jean 37]

Yet it is your LP that is apparently scratched... repeating the same strange obsession with an infringement on rights that is as far away from any contextual truth as there can be.

Get a grip... you have no factual nor rational basis, so you are starting to resort to the more classical childish technique. Please don't go there.

If I've already stated that no rights are abdicated (right to own guns unless you're stark mad), and you insist I am... then clearly you do seem to have a problem with thinking things through...

perhaps you need to get a grip and realize you're giving away by advocating some test by some panel - right of innocence before presumed guilty. right to a jury of your peers. right to due process. but no, i'm the one you think is crazy

And what does that test entail? Get a grip indeed.

Once again you're making sh!t up Charles. I already told you I'm willing to take that hypothetical test with you. You can't presume guilt and by innocent at the same time, Charles- that's nonsensical.

It would lead someone to 'insinuate' as you say... that perhaps there is something you are afraid of having discovered about you. Now I could assume you'll stick your foot in your mouth again and say I stated that I am saying that you are hiding something.

Such is the reactionary mindset... never really thinking things through before reflexing a reaction.

yes, you did agree with natty's post. or do you just run off and post without thinking about the ramifications?

now tell me what's so special about a high capacity magazine? a bit of practice and one can swap out magazines in a very short time. that is, after all, what they were designed for.

ammo piercing ammo is already banned for private use. surely you knew that, didn't you? no?

as for sharing information between state and federal government, you might check out the brady bill and what it requires. it's already in effect, although as from the story in the op, not effectively.

and before anyone else decides to fire rounds my way, i'm all for someone losing their firearms on the first incident of domestic violence........

First sane thing you've said all day

As who my employer is, I'm privy to quite a bit of info that I can't share. However, I can tell you charles that there are companies out there that still produce those rounds. They simply modify one aspect of them and sell them under the radar. Yes, I do agree that someone trained could reload smaller magazines quickly enough that they could pump out almost as many rounds as a high capacity. However, I'm not worried so much about those with that sort of training. Someone with law enforcement, or military training could do a lot more damage with a lot less than your average citizen. Those people are also a lot smaller in number.

How can you honestly defend having high capacity magazines or assault rifles?

now we're off on assault rifles.......

and somewhere on vj i've posted before two pics and asked for people to identify the "assault rifle" funny thing was, only those familiar with guns knew the answer.

it was the same gun, just cosmetic modifications were made.

I believe I was the one that answered that one correctly.

Yet it is your LP that is apparently scratched... repeating the same strange obsession with an infringement on rights that is as far away from any contextual truth as there can be.

Get a grip... you have no factual nor rational basis, so you are starting to resort to the more classical childish technique. Please don't go there.

If I've already stated that no rights are abdicated (right to own guns unless you're stark mad), and you insist I am... then clearly you do seem to have a problem with thinking things through...

perhaps you need to get a grip and realize you're giving away by advocating some test by some panel - right of innocence before presumed guilty. right to a jury of your peers. right to due process. but no, i'm the one you think is crazy

not to mention the millions who have died defending these constitutional rights

Of course. On the streets against the evil government.

Or was it that we're supposed to have these rights to protect us from those sworn to uphold and protect those same rights?

Things get fuzzy right? And millions have died to do that?

all aggressors, foreign and DOMESTIC... nothing fuzzy

[Heracles 417]

People killed by means of firearms

No Gun Control

South Africa: 31,918 ~ killed every 16 minutes (wow)

Columbia: 21,898 ~ killed every 24 minutes

Thailand: 20,032 ~ killed every 26 minutes

USA: 9,369 ~ killed every 56 minutes

Philippines: 7,708 ~ killed every 68 minutes

Gun Control

Canada: 144 ~ killed every 3,650 minutes

AUS: 59 ~ killed every 8,908 minutes

UK: 14 ~ killed every 37,542 minutes

New Zealand: 10 ~ killed every 52,560 minutes

-------

Homicides with Firearms

No Gun Control

Columbia: 85%

USA: 65%

Gun Control

UK: 8%

AUS: 16%

Canada: 34%

New Zealand: 13%

-------

Overall homicide rate per 100,000 pop

No Gun Control

Columbia: 62.7

USA: 4.55

Gun Control

UK: 1.45

AUS: 1.57

Canada: 1.58

New Zealand: 1.36

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_...s-with-firearms

Edited September 8, 2009 by Booyah!

[HAL 9000 96]

Yet it is your LP that is apparently scratched... repeating the same strange obsession with an infringement on rights that is as far away from any contextual truth as there can be.

Get a grip... you have no factual nor rational basis, so you are starting to resort to the more classical childish technique. Please don't go there.

If I've already stated that no rights are abdicated (right to own guns unless you're stark mad), and you insist I am... then clearly you do seem to have a problem with thinking things through...

perhaps you need to get a grip and realize you're giving away by advocating some test by some panel - right of innocence before presumed guilty. right to a jury of your peers. right to due process. but no, i'm the one you think is crazy

And what does that test entail? Get a grip indeed.

Once again you're making sh!t up Charles. I already told you I'm willing to take that hypothetical test with you. You can't presume guilt and by innocent at the same time, Charles- that's nonsensical.

It would lead someone to 'insinuate' as you say... that perhaps there is something you are afraid of having discovered about you. Now I could assume you'll stick your foot in your mouth again and say I stated that I am saying that you are hiding something.

Such is the reactionary mindset... never really thinking things through before reflexing a reaction.

yes, you did agree with natty's post. or do you just run off and post without thinking about the ramifications?

now tell me what's so special about a high capacity magazine? a bit of practice and one can swap out magazines in a very short time. that is, after all, what they were designed for.

ammo piercing ammo is already banned for private use. surely you knew that, didn't you? no?

as for sharing information between state and federal government, you might check out the brady bill and what it requires. it's already in effect, although as from the story in the op, not effectively.

and before anyone else decides to fire rounds my way, i'm all for someone losing their firearms on the first incident of domestic violence........

First sane thing you've said all day

As who my employer is, I'm privy to quite a bit of info that I can't share. However, I can tell you charles that there are companies out there that still produce those rounds. They simply modify one aspect of them and sell them under the radar. Yes, I do agree that someone trained could reload smaller magazines quickly enough that they could pump out almost as many rounds as a high capacity. However, I'm not worried so much about those with that sort of training. Someone with law enforcement, or military training could do a lot more damage with a lot less than your average citizen. Those people are also a lot smaller in number.

How can you honestly defend having high capacity magazines or assault rifles?

now we're off on assault rifles.......

and somewhere on vj i've posted before two pics and asked for people to identify the "assault rifle" funny thing was, only those familiar with guns knew the answer.

it was the same gun, just cosmetic modifications were made.

I believe I was the one that answered that one correctly.

Yet it is your LP that is apparently scratched... repeating the same strange obsession with an infringement on rights that is as far away from any contextual truth as there can be.

Get a grip... you have no factual nor rational basis, so you are starting to resort to the more classical childish technique. Please don't go there.

If I've already stated that no rights are abdicated (right to own guns unless you're stark mad), and you insist I am... then clearly you do seem to have a problem with thinking things through...

perhaps you need to get a grip and realize you're giving away by advocating some test by some panel - right of innocence before presumed guilty. right to a jury of your peers. right to due process. but no, i'm the one you think is crazy

not to mention the millions who have died defending these constitutional rights

Of course. On the streets against the evil government.

Or was it that we're supposed to have these rights to protect us from those sworn to uphold and protect those same rights?

Things get fuzzy right? And millions have died to do that?

all aggressors, foreign and DOMESTIC... nothing fuzzy

Hmmm... so you're implying that those 'millions' who've died defending these constitutional rights... have done so against domestic aggressors?

I'd love to see that history book in your library.

Anyway... lets see where this thread goes. With your entrance and Charles' insistence on seeing things that are not there I can predict that things will go nowhere rational very fast.

TTAYL

[justashooter 430]

As who my employer is, I'm privy to quite a bit of info that I can't share. However, I can tell you charles that there are companies out there that still produce those rounds. They simply modify one aspect of them and sell them under the radar. Yes, I do agree that someone trained could reload smaller magazines quickly enough that they could pump out almost as many rounds as a high capacity. However, I'm not worried so much about those with that sort of training. Someone with law enforcement, or military training could do a lot more damage with a lot less than your average citizen. Those people are also a lot smaller in number.

How can you honestly defend having high capacity magazines or assault rifles?

armour piercing ammo is not banned from private possession or use. it is prohibited from comercial sale if designed for use in pistols. there are container boxes full of the stuff out there and i can buy more tomorrow if i run out of black tips. incendiaries, too. trouble with APIT, though, is it sets the woods on fire and i lose decent marketable timber.

"assault rifles" and high capacity magazines in private hands is what the 2nd amendment is all about. having a populace as well armed as the standing military is what keeps America free from enemies foreign and domestic. it is what guarantees your right to compose drivel on the internet for me to answer.

[Ban Hammer 14,251]

Nice red herring there Charles, but you dont' address anything pertinent. I define assault rifle by it's function, not its form.

then feel free to define it. this should be amusing

[Ban Hammer 14,251]

all aggressors, foreign and DOMESTIC... nothing fuzzy

Hmmm... so you're implying that those 'millions' who've died defending these constitutional rights... have done so against domestic aggressors?

I'd love to see that history book in your library.

Anyway... lets see where this thread goes. With your entrance and Charles' insistence on seeing things that are not there I can predict that things will go nowhere rational very fast.

TTAYL

don't recognize that? i'm not surprised.......

enemies of the us can be domestic too ya know.

[justashooter 430]

1.) As who my employer is, I'm privy to quite a bit of info that I can't share.

2.) Yes, I do agree that someone trained could reload smaller magazines quickly enough that they could pump out almost as many rounds as a high capacity. However, I'm not worried so much about those with that sort of training. Someone with law enforcement, or military training could do a lot more damage with a lot less than your average citizen. Those people are also a lot smaller in number.

3.) Hmmm... so you're implying that those 'millions' who've died defending these constitutional rights... have done so against domestic aggressors?

I'd love to see that history book in your library.

1.) you must be in her majesty's secret service.

2.) years ago we called remington pump guns "potter county machine guns". pennsylvania does not allow the use of autoloaders in hunting, so we do the best we can with what is allowed. pennsylvania puts a million hunters in the field on the opening day of each deer season. some of them are tyros, but many are quiet men who only need one shot. many of them have "assault rifles" just for the hell of it, and train with them on a regular basis. in the days of $69/1000 ammo some i knew went through 5000-1000 rounds a year, right next to me.

as far as law enforcement, not many that i have met have significant training or the correct mindset to kill without compunction. they are not "soldiers of the law", just bullies with badges, with a few honorable exceptions.

as for past military, most are REMF with no combat experience, and today's combat troops are "turkey shooters", trained on fish in a barrel in the sandbox. some have high kill numbers, but these kills were not earned against trained and battle hardened troops. prolly 90% of ex GI are more dangerous to themselves with a gun than to anyone else. look at that jessica what's her name with the silver star. she neglected to maintain her rifle, so did not get off a single shot when her convoy was ambushed. one of the other fellows in her convoy went through his entire load out and some pick-ups, but didn't get a star because he didn't have a #######. i'd ride with him any day, and have her making coffee.

3.) you are forgetting a few important events in between 1776 and 1783, and between 1861 and 1865.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

all aggressors, foreign and DOMESTIC... nothing fuzzy

Hmmm... so you're implying that those 'millions' who've died defending these constitutional rights... have done so against domestic aggressors?

I'd love to see that history book in your library.

Anyway... lets see where this thread goes. With your entrance and Charles' insistence on seeing things that are not there I can predict that things will go nowhere rational very fast.

TTAYL

don't recognize that? i'm not surprised.......

enemies of the us can be domestic too ya know.

Damn, Michael Phelps.