Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

And, right now, the military-type assault weapons are an important source of their profits--and they have an obvious vested interest in not wanting to see such sales curtailed--regardless of any issues of public health or safety.

BillRM wrote:

Of course Firefly I do not see you as likely caring about solving this problem but are just using it and the dead children as a mean/excuse to take more freedoms from the people.

And you'd have to include both Gen. Stanley McChrystal and Mark Kelly in that vile accusation as well, since both have commented on that massacre of children, and both have now spoken out, loud and clear, calling for action on the problem of gun violence.

People like Gen. Stanley McChrystal and Mark Kelly have put their lives on the line to serve this country, and, by serving it, defended it's freedoms--including those of the 2nd Amendment.

When people, like you, accuse them of using," the dead children as a mean/excuse to take more freedoms from the people," because they are asking for serious efforts to reduce our problems with gun violence, you not only sound like an idiot, you really have no appreciation of the cost of freedom, or appreciation for the efforts of those, the real heros, who defend it for people like you.

Face it, BillRM, you're just a spineless punk, who has been brainwashed by the fear-mongering propaganda of the gun lobby, and you're needlessly worried the big bad government will take away your all guns. And people, like Gen. McChrystal and Mark Kelly, gun owners who aren't afraid to stand up against gun violence, or against the gun lobby, show someone like you up for being the sniveling little twerp you are.

Oralloy, you are a complete idiot.

Nobody is trying to deny you the freedom to carry or own a gun.

As a Hunter, I have absolutely no problem with a ban on high capacity magazines. A 5 round magazine is more than enough for the average deer hunter in this country, no matter what caliber you are using.

h2o, you are also an idiot.
You and oralloy have attacked anyone on here that disagrees with you. You call people "freedom haters", you ignore and avoid direct questions asked of you, and you are generally making yourselves look like idiots and doing nothing to help your case.

The two of you are classic examples of people who should not be given a CCW permit.

Yes, there are people that are "anti-gun", but I seriously doubt that they are anti second amendment.

Lets ban any magazine of more than 5 rounds.

There is a common ground for agreement, but we cannot allow the extremists on either side to set the rules for reaching a compromise. The "all or nothing" crowd on both sides of the discussion must be ignored, and cooler heads must prevail.

firefly wrote:

Thanks, mysteryman, for a really thoughtful post that clearly shows the gun owners here are not all of the same mind or same mind-set.

Yes it was a thoughtful post, thumbs up from me.

Would you allow police officers to own their own off duty weapons?

No. And they don't. (Do you read my posts?)

What do you want to shoot animals for? I'ts ******* disgusting imo unless deemed necessary by a Minister of State taking responsibility for it.

And I do have faith in our government to protect me although I am aware it is not 100%. I'm happy with that. And so it the vast bulk of my fellow citizens.

mysteryman wrote:
The two of you are classic examples of people who should not be given a CCW permit.

ysteryman wrote:
Lets ban any magazine of more than 5 rounds.


Unconstitutional.

10 rounds may or may not pass muster with the courts, but a 5 round limit would clearly unconstitutionally hamper self defense.

Even if that were true (it isn't), that would not in any way justify violating my Constitutional right to have an assault weapon.

If they required mental health testing/evaluation/screening, before allowing the purchase of firearms, you'd never pass it.

They seems to be against the first as well as the second amendment.

I must have said something right.
I am now being attacked by the extremists on both sides.
Oh well, such is life.

oralloy wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Lets ban any magazine of more than 5 rounds.

Unconstitutional.

10 rounds may or may not pass muster with the courts, but a 5 round limit would clearly unconstitutionally hamper self defense.

We all will have to change out to heavy hunting caliber rounds no more light assault type rounds.

If you need more than 5 rounds to bring down a deer you shouldnt be hunting.

If you need more than 5 rounds to bring down a deer you shouldnt be hunting.

oralloy wrote:

Even if that were true (it isn't), that would not in any way justify violating my Constitutional right to have an assault weapon.

What Constitutional right to own an assault weapon?

If they required mental health testing/evaluation/screening, before allowing the purchase of firearms, you'd never pass it.

Its time for me to jump in here.

Quote:

If they required mental health testing/evaluation/screening, before allowing the purchase of firearms, you'd never pass it.

chuckle chuckle...