…another member of the elite using their own tragedy to push infringements of rights on the rest of us. I did find this bit heartening, though:
The NRA spent at least $24 million in the 2012 election cycle, including $16.8 million through its political action committee and $7.5 million through its affiliated Institute for Legislative Action. By comparison, the Brady Campaign spent around $5,800.
So…yeah. Good luck taking on American gun owners!
And offering $50 gift cards for WORKING GUNS? Sweet zombie jeebus, talk about selling one’s birthright for a mess of pottage!
Tags: politics
Live from the Alamo City 
January 8, 2013 at 19:54 |
I agree with limiting assault rifles and extended clip magazines, but I agree with you that there is no way the government can take away all guns from the people. Froming growing up in the South, it is very apparent that the phrase “over my dead body” is very true when it comes to this.
January 8, 2013 at 20:31 |
Dear bobafett892:
Could you please explain, in your own words, what the terms “assault rifles” and “extended clip magazines” mean to you?
January 8, 2013 at 21:30 |
By “assault rifles” I mean things such as AR-15s and any weapon that is basically a civilian version of a military weapons, like how the AR-15 is basically an M-16. My reason behind that is that they can easily be converted into automatic weapons using kits, even though many times they are not sold that way. Another way of solving that would be by enacting better control on those kits. By “extended magazines” I mean any non-standard clip size. There is no reason that someone needs a 30 round clip for a pistol at their house that is meant for protection.
My reason behind my stance on this is the simple fact that there is no reason to have an automatic weapon or a high capactiy weapon unless one is in the military or for competition shooting. You do not need an automatic weapon for home defense or for hunting.
January 9, 2013 at 11:18 |
How do you know what anyone else needs? I suppose your statement means you don’t believe you need items such as semi-autos and normal capacity magazines, so no one else needs them. If you just need a bicycle to get around, no one else has a reason to drive a pickup or minivan?
January 9, 2013 at 15:40 |
Dwight is correct. You obviously have been listening to the MSM rather than researching actual facts.
January 9, 2013 at 06:50 |
Sigh. I think I’ll just defer to Michael Marks again:
“It is not surprising that people may feel that a big rifle is inappropriate, heck there are people who would ban fast cars, fast motorcycles, fast boats, all with the same argument of ‘who really needs to go that fast?’ But somebody’s idea of what I need isn’t the issue – America is about freedom. I can build a bigger house than I need, seeks thrills from skydiving to snowboarding that I don’t need, own a stereo so loud that it hurts my ears if I choose to. The moment we allow someone to villify anything on the basis of ‘more than we need’ is the moment that we set into motion a precedent that could touch anything in our lives. The restriction of personal freedom of any sort is a sober and weighty decision that deserves to be made upon real facts, not hype.”
January 9, 2013 at 10:35 |
“…civilian version of a military weapons”
So you object to civilian versions of military weapons. Do you object to the Remington 700 and Winchester Model 70 bolt-action rifles? Those are civilian version of an original military design, the Mauser 98.
“My reason behind that is that they can easily be converted into automatic weapons using kits, even though many times they are not sold that way.”
They are NEVER sold that way. “Automatic weapons” (which are correctly defined as weapons that fire as long as the trigger is held back) have been strictly regulated since 1934, and no automatic weapon manufactured after 1986 can be sold to a private citizen. To purchase a pre-1986 automatic weapon, you have to undergo an extensive federal background check, get local law enforcement officials to sign off on the purchase, and pay a $200 tax.
Converting a semi-automatic (fires one shot with every pull of the trigger) to a fully automatic weapon is a Federal crime.
“By ‘extended magazines’ I mean any non-standard clip size.”
Standard sizes for AR-15 magazines are 20 to 30 rounds, so you clearly have no objection to those.
“There is no reason that someone needs a 30 round clip for a pistol at their house that is meant for protection.”
Oh, wait, you do. The proprietor has already addressed your “need” argument, so I’ll just add that you’re wrong: there are certainly defensive situations (such as multiple opponents) where a normal magazine capacity is needed.
“My reason behind my stance on this is the simple fact that there is no reason to have an automatic weapon or a high capactiy weapon unless one is in the military or for competition shooting. You do not need an automatic weapon for home defense or for hunting.”
So:
1. You’ve admitted that competition shooting is a legitimate use for normal capacity magazines.
2. We’ve already established that you don’t understand the difference between highly regulated automatic weapons, which are extremely rare in civilian hands, and modern sporting rifles, so your “You do not need an automatic weapon for home defense or for hunting” isn’t worth addressing.
January 9, 2013 at 11:27 |
Not much else I can say, but…Well said, Dwight & Les.
And yes…the current advocacy for gun laws IS driven by hype, and a healthy dose of fear, by those who either have no idea what they’re talking about, are exploiting the fears of the ignorant, or both.
January 9, 2013 at 14:41 |
there are certainly defensive situations (such as multiple opponents) where a normal magazine capacity is needed.
Petit home invasion in Connecticut, Billings home invasion in Florida, L.A. riots, Katrina…
January 9, 2013 at 20:47 |
[…] Wrong, but thank you for playing, TMQ. (We can start with New Orleans post-Katrina as an example. Also, there’s that slippery “need” thing again.) […]