military style and weapons of war

BretJ said:

Nor is there any good reason in others eyes for a 24 pack of Budweiser or anything over 4% alcohol content. Kills exponentially more people than 20-30 round mags but seems the public does not care much for those lives. No good reason for cars in civilian use that can out outrun law enforcement. Speeding also kills far more innocents than these mags but people aren't crying out for speed governors. I guess some lives are worth more than others.

What you are suggesting is the same argument used 100 years ago to rationalize Prohibition. "No one needs alcohol" It is also the same mindset that justified interning Japanese Americans 50 years ago or current stop and frisk policies. "We are screwing these citizens rights over because 1 out of thousands might do something illegal".

Click to expand...

Well I don't think these analogies are very much to the point. But good luck with the hogs!

zip said:

Well I don't think these analogies are very much to the point. But good luck with the hogs!

Click to expand...

I use the analogies to hopefully bring about a little cognitive dissonance. How can someone determine someone else does not need something when deciding to restrict a particular right or freedom yet not be willing to apply that very same litmus test to an area they might personally enjoy? Not very consistant and calls into question as to whether the concern is rational. Alcohol abuse costs the U.S. way more in human tragedy than illegal use of firearms, yet those lives lost do not appear to be worth the time and effort. My assertion is that most calling for firearms restrictions for others would not tolerate being asked to make similar modifications to their own behaviour in regards to their own rights or freedoms....even if it would save exponentially more lives.

BretJ said:

I use the analogies to hopefully bring about a little cognitive dissonance. How can someone determine someone else does not need something when deciding to restrict a particular right or freedom yet not be willing to apply that very same litmus test to an area they might personally enjoy? Not very consistant and calls into question as to whether the concern is rational. Alcohol abuse costs the U.S. way more in human tragedy than illegal use of firearms, yet those lives lost do not appear to be worth the time and effort. My assertion is that most calling for firearms restrictions for others would not tolerate being asked to make similar modifications to their own behaviour in regards to their own rights or freedoms....even if it would save exponentially more lives.

Click to expand...

We are not talking about alcohol, cars, or sugary treats.
Weapons such as hand grenades, fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, etc. are not available to the public. As weapons become less lethal, they are available to the public. We have to decide at what point a weapons potential exceeds what we want widely available to the public. My assertion is that large magazines fall too far to the lethal side. That's the debate for me- where are we on this scale from most dangerous least dangerous.
A similar scale can be seen with alcohol: we've decided you can't drink until you are 21. It used to be 18 in the US. We could make it 25. We seem pretty comfortable with age 21, and laws against drinking and driving. If there is sentiment to move the scale up or down, then we debate that.

zip said:

We are not talking about alcohol, cars, or sugary treats.
Weapons such as hand grenades, fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, etc. are not available to the public. As weapons become less lethal, they are available to the public. We have to decide at what point a weapons potential exceeds what we want widely available to the public. My assertion is that large magazines fall too far to the lethal side. That's the debate for me- where are we on this scale from most dangerous least dangerous.
A similar scale can be seen with alcohol: we've decided you can't drink until you are 21. It used to be 18 in the US. We could make it 25. We seem pretty comfortable with age 21, and laws against drinking and driving. If there is sentiment to move the scale up or down, then we debate that.

Click to expand...

so you ban magazines above 15 rounds

and then there is a massacre and you ban magazines above 10 rounds

see where this is going

criminals cannot own any firearm

if they are going to break the law and have a firearm-Why wouldn't they also have as many rounds as they want

why do you want to handicap honest citizens

ANYTHING CIVILIAN POLICE CAN USE IN TERMS OF WEAPONS other citizens should be able to own

if you don't want your neighbor owning grenades-than cops shouldn't have them either since cops don't have a greater right to kill someone than you do

if you are afraid to let someone like me-a world class shooter who was a federal prosecutor for 24 years and knows the law inside and out-own a machine gun, then you shouldn't let some cop with a HS education and a 95 IQ carry one on the streets of my town

TurtleDude said:

its further proof that the anti gun movement-a movement I call the "Banoid"movement, wants to ban all guns. By using such a stupid term to inflame the emotions of weak minded hysterical sheep, the Banoids hope to create hatred against all firearms.

Click to expand...

Only liberals could turn an anti-gun movement into a verbal bowel movement!

zip said:

We are not talking about alcohol, cars, or sugary treats.
Weapons such as hand grenades, fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, etc. are not available to the public. As weapons become less lethal, they are available to the public. We have to decide at what point a weapons potential exceeds what we want widely available to the public. My assertion is that large magazines fall too far to the lethal side. That's the debate for me- where are we on this scale from most dangerous least dangerous.
A similar scale can be seen with alcohol: we've decided you can't drink until you are 21. It used to be 18 in the US. We could make it 25. We seem pretty comfortable with age 21, and laws against drinking and driving. If there is sentiment to move the scale up or down, then we debate that.

Click to expand...

Fully auto weapons and the like are available to the public. For what it is worth, there are more privately owned fully automatic weapons in private hands than in law enforcement. Pretty expensive hobby though....

BretJ said:

Fully auto weapons and the like are available to the public. For what it is worth, there are more privately owned fully automatic weapons in private hands than in law enforcement. Pretty expensive hobby though....

Click to expand...

Nah, just get a bump stock for $100. No background check, no fingerprints, no tax stamps, no registration, no sheriff signing off, no gun trusts, etc.