Yes, indeed. Other than fantasy scenarios of multiple gunmen invading their home, or the "fun" of shooting more rounds at a shooting range, I have heard no good reason for gun owners to possess extended magazine clips.
Same goes for assault weapons, other than the ridiculous assertion that they are only "cosmetically" different from hunting rifles.
Supporting continued sale of these is nothing more than supporting mass murderers.
@Baldr: We don't have to have reasons, because it's our RIGHT to own personal property and also our RIGHT to keep and bear arms.
In order to justify a ban, YOU have to provide reasons to take them away, and you haven't provided any evidence that any ban will work to take these away from anyone willing to break the law that really wants one.
Sure, a ban may provide a "trickle down" effect on the street (such as the report from that state showing more reduced-capacity magazines were found during the AWB), but you (and nobody else) has proven there was any actual benefit.
Of course O'Donnell, being a collectivist (and proud of it), is offended by the idea of an armed citizenry--that's the default position of collectivists, who know a citizenry capable of resisting their agenda, will.
The funny thing is that Red Larry is wetting his panties over as tepid a gun rights "advocate" as Wayne LaPierre. If the NRA were still run by folks like Neal Knox and Harlon Carter, rather than having allowed itself to be taken over by Neville Chamberlain-types like LaPierre, "gun control" would be as dead as Red Larry's hero, and he'd really be soiling himself.
After watching the actual video, I'm finding myself getting angrier and angrier at Lawrence O'Donnell, his spin and his lies.
He clips LaPierre's speech all to pieces into little sound bites (eliminating all arguments),
He claims that in 2003 Jared Loughner couldn't get high-capacity magazines because they were "illegal" which wasn't true, you could still buy them legally if they were manufactured before the ban in 2004.
He states Loughner could have been stopped after 10 rounds with a reduced-capacity magazine, but he's making a wild assumption. Had Loughner had smaller magazines, it's just as likely he wouldn't have fumbled the reload and been able to continue shooting until he had no magazines left.
The 10.3% statement is actually true, but the problem with that is the limited duration of the study (1994-1996) and that it did not compare the firearm-related homicide rates with the remaining homicide rates... Wouldn't it disprove the AWB had any effect if the non-homicide rates changed at the same levels?
Baldr, you should do a post on your blog where we can debate those cosmetic differences of “assault weapons”. An open honest debate where you post all clean questions and answer or acknowledge them, and we’ll do the same. By the end you may at least come away with a similar view as Mike, in that “assault weapons” are difficult to define, and far from the real issues of gun control.
Pretty much a complete misstatement of facts. If not outright lies, it is statements stripped of all context and bearing.
Baler. Google home invasions and see just how many times that fantasy of yours really happens. You love the word "fantasy"' but like the guy in the "princess bride", you seem to be getting it's meaning mixed up.
TS, You describe my ideas about assault weapons perfectly, difficult to define and far from our main concern. But, you wouldn't know it reading some of the recent gun control stuff out there. You'd think magazine capacity is the main issue.
The main issues, as far as I'm concerned are background checks, licensing and registration. The NRA is the chief obstacle in their way. That makes them a blood-drenched org.
Yes, indeed. Other than fantasy scenarios of multiple gunmen invading their home, or the "fun" of shooting more rounds at a shooting range, I have heard no good reason for gun owners to possess extended magazine clips.
ReplyDeleteSame goes for assault weapons, other than the ridiculous assertion that they are only "cosmetically" different from hunting rifles.
Supporting continued sale of these is nothing more than supporting mass murderers.
"Supporting continued sale of these is nothing more than supporting mass murderers."
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that your cosmetic "assault" rifles have been used in less than .17% of homicides in the U.S. don't you?
@Baldr: We don't have to have reasons, because it's our RIGHT to own personal property and also our RIGHT to keep and bear arms.
ReplyDeleteIn order to justify a ban, YOU have to provide reasons to take them away, and you haven't provided any evidence that any ban will work to take these away from anyone willing to break the law that really wants one.
Sure, a ban may provide a "trickle down" effect on the street (such as the report from that state showing more reduced-capacity magazines were found during the AWB), but you (and nobody else) has proven there was any actual benefit.
...Orygunner...
Of course O'Donnell, being a collectivist (and proud of it), is offended by the idea of an armed citizenry--that's the default position of collectivists, who know a citizenry capable of resisting their agenda, will.
ReplyDeleteThe funny thing is that Red Larry is wetting his panties over as tepid a gun rights "advocate" as Wayne LaPierre. If the NRA were still run by folks like Neal Knox and Harlon Carter, rather than having allowed itself to be taken over by Neville Chamberlain-types like LaPierre, "gun control" would be as dead as Red Larry's hero, and he'd really be soiling himself.
After watching the actual video, I'm finding myself getting angrier and angrier at Lawrence O'Donnell, his spin and his lies.
ReplyDeleteHe clips LaPierre's speech all to pieces into little sound bites (eliminating all arguments),
He claims that in 2003 Jared Loughner couldn't get high-capacity magazines because they were "illegal" which wasn't true, you could still buy them legally if they were manufactured before the ban in 2004.
He states Loughner could have been stopped after 10 rounds with a reduced-capacity magazine, but he's making a wild assumption. Had Loughner had smaller magazines, it's just as likely he wouldn't have fumbled the reload and been able to continue shooting until he had no magazines left.
The 10.3% statement is actually true, but the problem with that is the limited duration of the study (1994-1996) and that it did not compare the firearm-related homicide rates with the remaining homicide rates... Wouldn't it disprove the AWB had any effect if the non-homicide rates changed at the same levels?
...Orygunner...
Lies are all people like that tool has to work with. The truth is no where near his side.
ReplyDeleteBaldr, you should do a post on your blog where we can debate those cosmetic differences of “assault weapons”. An open honest debate where you post all clean questions and answer or acknowledge them, and we’ll do the same. By the end you may at least come away with a similar view as Mike, in that “assault weapons” are difficult to define, and far from the real issues of gun control.
ReplyDeletePretty much a complete misstatement of facts. If not outright lies, it is statements stripped of all context and bearing.
ReplyDeleteBaler. Google home invasions and see just how many times that fantasy of yours really happens. You love the word "fantasy"' but like the guy in the "princess bride", you seem to be getting it's meaning mixed up.
If the NRA is drenched in blood, it is only because the Brady Campaign splashes them as they dance in it.
ReplyDeleteTS, You describe my ideas about assault weapons perfectly, difficult to define and far from our main concern. But, you wouldn't know it reading some of the recent gun control stuff out there. You'd think magazine capacity is the main issue.
ReplyDeleteThe main issues, as far as I'm concerned are background checks, licensing and registration. The NRA is the chief obstacle in their way. That makes them a blood-drenched org.