The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5235525)
The evil kid that shot up the school in Newtown was a criminal.

There is no way you can deny that fact - Deal with it.

Of what was he convicted?

If you are saying he was a nut case...I probably will agree. I am beginning to see that there are many nut cases out there who own guns.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

He murdered his mom and stole her weapons - he was a criminal before he entered the school.

Also, background check prevented him from purchasing a weapon on his own, he was a bad evil person before he went hunting in a gun free zone.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

oralloy wrote:
H2O MAN wrote:
It's both funny and sad that some still don't understand the difference between a clip and a magazine.

To be fair, I do the same thing whenever I'm not thinking about it.

I do know the difference, but if I post without thinking about it, I'll often use the word clip when I should say magazine.

Take your time, think and get it right, it's that important.

I heard audio of Biden today talking about magazines with 20 or 30 clips in them and how we should limit magazines to having a maximum of 10 clips in them.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Most people would not wear seat belts if they had a choice not involving punishment.

Are you crazy? Do you know what car accidents are like?

I'd go nuts if I were in a moving car without a seat belt on.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

However, the Second Amendment does have the phrase "shall not be infringed." That's a pretty absolute statement. It makes me wonder about the constitutionality of ANY gun control laws, even while I think those laws are needed. Legally speaking, how are any gun control laws constitutional? (I'm obviously not an expert at law or even this topic.)

The government is allowed to pass laws that impact a fundamental right if they can justify those laws by showing that they address a compelling public interest.

The government could probably show a compelling public interest in preventing the general public from having explosive hand grenades.

The government can't show a compelling public interest in banning pistol grips on rifles.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Unless someone were in a situation where "firing without aiming" was adequate, the advantage would be slight.

You mean like instances where the shooter only wants to kill as many as possible and doesn't care who exactly they kill?

No. Firing without aiming would not be adequate to such a task.

The only situations where firing without aiming seems to arise in criminal actions is in drive-by shootings using handguns, and that is because the need to "go fast and then leave fast" takes precedence over the goal of killing people.

When spree killers go on a rampage, they unfortunately take the time to aim their guns at their victims. If they just fired without aiming, they would kill far fewer people.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Lustig Andrei wrote:
And BillRM< why do you keep fantasizing about lever-action rifles? Bolt action are far more common and have been since about 1903.

Bolt actions don't fire nearly as fast. He focuses on lever actions because his point is about guns that fire at a fairly high rate of speed.

Fewer bullets per second? Why would that possibly matter? All the people would still be dead.

Using a bolt action in self defense against a human is likely to end up with you getting killed while you are chambering a new round.

It isn't ideal for defense against the largest and most dangerous animals either. The only reason bolt actions are used for such is because faster actions usually can't handle the large and powerful rounds that are used for such purposes.

If someone were to use a bolt action on a killing spree, they would end up getting tacked by their potential victims between shots.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Unless someone were in a situation where "firing without aiming" was adequate, the advantage would be slight.

It's called suppressive fire and it requires a fire team.

True, but that is not likely to arise very often in civilian life (whether in lawful self defense or in a criminal act).

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

All this idiocy about rate of fire not being an issue makes me think we need to get all the conspiracy nuts that think Oswald couldn't have acted alone because no one can fire a bolt action rifle that fast and accurately in a room with all the gun nuts that think the rate of fire has no impact on how deadly a weapon can be and let them fight to the death.

Oswald did not fire from close range. He didn't have to worry about someone tackling him or shooting him while he was chambering a round.

Most cases of self defense involve close range.

Most spree killers also kill from close range.

There are exceptions of course. That guy in Switzerland had to use a bolt action because that was the most he could get without a background check. But he did not kill a huge number of people either.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:
A fast rate of fire is no substitute for individual shot placement.

Unless of course you are firing at a crowd and don't care who you hit.

If you care about hitting anyone at all, aiming is a big help.

If you fire without aiming, most of your shots are not likely to strike a single person.

And even those shots that hit someone are likely to only wound them.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

Vice President Joe Biden said :
" The cops were being out gunned by the criminals and they pleaded to have
equal firepower, we need to protect our policemen from these type of weapons."

The followup question should of been:
Mr. Vice President don't you think that the homeowners should have the same
opportunity to have equal firepower as the criminals who break in their house?

I would have asked him how having a pistol grip on a rifle resulted in any increase in firepower.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

Frank is the troll, and you know it.

I second that.

All Frank Apisa does is lie, lie, lie, and then lie some more.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Lever actions are at a slight disadvantage, because you have to take your finger off the trigger when you work the lever, but they shoot fast enough to be good in a fight.

I wonder if Browning still puts out the BLR centerfire rifle. You very well did not have to take your finger off the trigger, and the bolt locked up at the front - unlike most other lever actions. Also, it wasn't limited to round nose bullets because it didn't use a tubular magazine. Essentially, it was a bolt action rifle operated by a lever.

They still make it. It is quite prominent in their product lines.

The one drawback is the small magazine size. Perfect for deer hunting, but not so great for self defense.

Back during the bad old days of the old assault weapon ban, I kept wondering if it were possible to make 10 round magazines for the Browning BLR and BAR (and also the pump and semi-auto rifles from Remington), and wishing that someone would do so.

If you have to be limited to 10 rounds per magazine, might as well make it 10 rounds of 7mm mag (or something similar).

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

The government is allowed to pass laws that impact a fundamental right if they can justify those laws by showing that they address a compelling public interest.

The government could probably show a compelling public interest in preventing the general public from having explosive hand grenades.

The government can't show a compelling public interest in banning pistol grips on rifles.

True that, but the Second Amendment isn't about pistol grips. It's about private gun ownership. All guns. Yesterday I read that about 2/3 of all homicides in the US are committed with firearms. I was surprised. Would/Could that be considered "compelling public interest"?

To clarify my position: I'm not a "rabid" gun owner. I don't thump the Constitution as if I were a fundie and it was the Bible. But target practice and hunting have been my favorite hobbies since I was a kid. I'd hate to know that I couldn't do those anymore.

Also, even if the Second Amendment were rescinded today, there'd still be millions of untraceable firearms out there that criminals would use to prey on a suddenly disarmed, law-abiding public. My suggestion has been to stop wasting billions of dollars on that stupid "War on Drugs" and put it into a "War on Illegal Guns." AFTER that problem is solved, then we can talk about whether or not it's worth rescinding the Second Amendment to disarm law-abiding citizens.

2 Replies

I just read that a proposed Constitutional amendment has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states in the US before it can be enacted.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Yesterday I read that about 2/3 of all homicides in the US are committed with firearms. I was surprised. Would/Could that be considered "compelling public interest"?

The fact that guns are the preferred tool is not all that significant. I don't see how it would justify anything. If a killer switched tools and killed someone with a knife instead of with a gun, the victim would still be dead.

FBM wrote:

To clarify my position: I'm not a "rabid" gun owner. I don't thump the Constitution as if I were a fundie and it was the Bible. But target practice and hunting have been my favorite hobbies since I was a kid. I'd hate to know that I couldn't do those anymore.

Your best bet are the NRA and the GOA. They do more than anyone else to prevent Congress from violating gun owners' rights.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5235533)

He murdered his mom and stole her weapons - he was a criminal before he entered the school.

Earth calling H2O.

Until he started his shooting spree...which was by killing his mother, do you know if this guy ever even got a jaywalking ticket????

Quote:

Also, background check prevented him from purchasing a weapon on his own, he was a bad evil person before he went hunting in a gun free zone.

If this is so...then perhaps very increased background checks are the first place to start before anyone can buy a gun anywhere.

As for who is a "bad evil person"...how do we determine who is that kind of person. Are you?

And how do we determine if you are answering that question truthfully?

0 Replies

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:
Frank is the troll, and you know it.

I second that.

All Frank Apisa does is lie, lie, lie, and then lie some more.

More FrankA lies are on tap for today... what will he make up next?

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

More FrankA lies are on tap for today... what will he make up next?

I'm willing for you to point out any lies I have told...and we can discuss them.

I'm also willing to discuss the "more guns equal fewer shootings" notion.

I doubt you will do either, though. You prefer to just indulge in name-calling and insults.

0 Replies

The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know