We don't need to speak our minds about elected officials.

We don't need to enjoy a democratically elected government.

We don't need the right to privacy and safety from unreasonable search.

We don't need a lot of things we enjoy as rights. But let's not confuse rights with needs. The two are not even close to the same thing.

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

Wait... you're trying to compare freedom of speech with owning a magazine above ten rounds?

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Wait... you're trying to tell me what I can and cannot own?

You can't possibly be this naive. Can you?

All rights are created equal. Some rights are more equal than others.

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

My advice is that you don't give your gun(s) to anybody. Ever. If somebody else tries to take your gun you stop them. If somebody from the government says you have to give them your gun(s) you tell them to go fuck themselves.

_________________
Tanzania¹²

The unfortunate thing is when they stop you from getting a gun (legally) in the first place.

But this is why everyone, both gun owners and not, should stand up to these intrusions on our 2nd amendment.

funny stuff.

Sonic, maybe you should do some research, because quite frankly your ignorance is obvious on this subject. I was recently in an Conceal and Carry Class in IDAHO. The teacher is the the rangemaster for the police department. He told of a story of a man that was shot 26 times by police with gun chambered in .45 ACP..

Since you probably don't know what that is, it's one of the most powerful handgun calibur's out on the market. Even being shot 26 times the perp. was still aggressively resisting the police. Of coarse the first question from the class was "HOW MUCH DRUGS WAS THIS GUY ON." It's been thought that guys hopped up on drugs can seem oblivious to the pain and damage being inflicted.

The answer was NONE-- He was completley clean, the autopsy showed no signed of drugs.

Another example just a few weeks back a intruder was trying to attack a mother and children. THe Mother had a revolver and shot 6 bullets- 5 of which hit the guy in the NECK and throat and he didn't die.

The point is quite simple. This isn't the movies. If you shoot a person once he doesn't instantly go down in a heap, even if you shoot a intruder through the heart they may still have 8-10 seconds to do you harm.
Now what if there are 3 intruders? Do you really like your odds with just 10 bullets?? I wouldn't.

Furthermore the constitution says nothing about "need." People want more bullets and higher capacity and why shouldn't they have it? The fact is an "assault weapon" functions exactly as a semi-automatic pistol, Infact "Assault Weapons," the scary guns are actually more safe than semi-auto pistols. There is research that suggest that a .223 calibur rifle round (the most common calibur in a sporting rifle (AW)) penetrates less than does a 9mm handgun round. The 9mm often over penetrates and can go through walls and unintentionally harm a loved one, whereas the .223 from an "assault weapon" does not penetrate to that extent and could actually be safer in home defense situations.

This whole thing is analogous to Alcohol and drunk driving. More people are killed by drunk drivers than by gun voilence. (There is mroe than triple the deaths of auto accidents- guns) The reason I point out drunk driving is it's illegal but yet you don't see lunatic politicians saying, we need to limit the availability of alcohol.

To take the anology further. To say you can't have "assualt weapons"( a term invented by gun control groups) and high capacity magainzes,, would be akin to saying people don't need HARD ALCOHOL, I mean it's too dangerous, poeple can get drunk too quickly off that stuff. Instead we'll pass a law banning HARD ALCOHOL and only have Beer and Wine as legal options. Doesn't this sound ridiculous too you? If so than the gun ban stuff is just as ridiculous to gun owners. I'm not a drinker, but does that mean I should oppose alcohol? But the gun-o-phobes, want them banned because guns scare them.

We all know that both guns and Alcohol bring with it a certain amount of risk. But for some reason the liberals are turning a blind eye that their own policies are biting them in the ass. The NO GUN ZONES don't work. Why is it that all of the mass shootings are in GUN FREE ZONES. Anyone who argues this point is clueless, they are not keeping kids safe and need to be abolished.

Yeah I'm with Waters on this one. Especially on gun free zones. Want a place to shoot and not get shot at? Head to the gun free zone nearest you.

_________________
Brass knuckles and a 2x4.

Wait... Many more?

Deaths by drunk driving accidents (hint, accidents, 2010): 31% of all driving related deaths... so 10,318 deaths caused by drunk drivers.

Deaths by firearms (including accidents, homicides and suicides): 31k.

Which one is more? Many more?

[/quote]



Your making relationships just because. There is no relationship. How often do people use alcohol to kill someone? Sure, they might abuse it and I'm all for an open discussion on the necessity of having things like alcohol available but it's a completely different discussion. The fact that you are unable to understand this bothers me.



I don't know what you're trying to argue? We shouldn't have GUN FREE ZONES? Do you think that GUN FREE ZONES increase violence?

The problem isn't that your average law abiding gun owner. That's a 100% fact. I'm sure all of you on this board can safely own and operate a gun. If our country of 300M people was all of you, then I'd be ok with gun ownership.

The problem is that there are so many guns and guns are so very effective at killing or seriously injuring people. They are in the hands illegally and legally by those who are not able to safely own a gun.

I'm not for banning a few weapons, I don't think that really does much. I'm not worried about mass shootings, those are very rare and only so preventable. I'd rather get rid of em all. Take as many out of the hands of those not responsible enough to have them. Yeah, it'll suck for you gun owners who are safe, but if every law was made for you we wouldn't have laws.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

"In order to continue to possess a so-called assault weapon that was owned before the assumed passing of the legislation, the person must "safely and securely" store the assault weapon and allow the sheriff of the county to, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to "ensure compliance," despite some apparent civil liberties implications related to the Fourth Amendment."

I am sure anyone who has a propensity to commit gun violence will willingly comply with this provision in the proposed legislation to keep children safe.

They must all be crappy shots!

_________________
Hugh Millen = CBJ minus the cool beard

BINGO!

_________________
Hugh Millen = CBJ minus the cool beard

Banana clips are fun, you're missing out if you haven't popped off a banana.

_________________
"Are we rockin' and rollin' or what?!''

-- Seattle coach Pete Carroll, celebrating with his coaches after the Seahawks pulled off a trade with the Jets, netting running back Leon Washington on Saturday, via Seahawks.com

They definitely are. In fact, I find shooting guns very enjoyable.

My father in law just got a new Ruger 45. Went out and shot it for the first time last weekend.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Nice! Me too, also bows. I like target shooting, but not hunting. I'm a modern cave man, much rather just hunt and gather at the store

_________________
"Are we rockin' and rollin' or what?!''

-- Seattle coach Pete Carroll, celebrating with his coaches after the Seahawks pulled off a trade with the Jets, netting running back Leon Washington on Saturday, via Seahawks.com

Your making relationships just because. There is no relationship. How often do people use alcohol to kill someone? Sure, they might abuse it and I'm all for an open discussion on the necessity of having things like alcohol available but it's a completely different discussion. The fact that you are unable to understand this bothers me.


[/quote]

I don't even know what this last line is suppose to mean. The right to bear arms is a basic right granted to us in the constitution. If we don't fight for these constitutional rights, than what good is the constitution?

I'm not sure where your getting your stats. The stats seem wildly different from source to source.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/i ... sheet.html

•In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.1

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... e-us-state
And the murder figures themselves are astounding for Brits used to around 550 murders per year. In 2011 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms

So your saying there was 22K+ Suicides? I find that very hard to beleive. But in any case it's not really relavent to this discussion.

But anyway you look at Alcohol and Firearms. Both can be dangerous when misused. YOu say it's a reach of a comparison. I do not. YOur looking at the intent, I'm looking at the end result. The end result is that alcohol related deaths > or = that of gun deaths (roughly speaking). So if were saying there's a "gun problem" than you'd have to admit their's a "drunk driving" problem since both have similar results.

The difference is that with the gun issue- the politicians are trying to punish and limit the access to lawful citizens in hopes of keeping people safe. Whereas concerning drunk driving they do nothing and only penalyze the perp. Why should the 99% of gun owners be hamstrung with ludicrous regulations-- that are based ONLY On cosmetics-- A gun looks to scary- quick we need to ban it. There is no logic to this way of thinking. There are no "fully automatic weapons" to be purchased at Cabela's.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/feds-admit-g ... low-crime/
The report finds no significant link between “assault weapons” and murders.

“Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to U.S. gun homicides and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence,” the report said.

The document, titled “Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies,” also sees no epidemic of mass shootings.

“Fatalities from mass shootings (those with 4 or more victims in a particular place and time) account on average for 35 fatalities per year,” the report said.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/feds-admit-g ... YJ8O3UW.99

First off the right to bear arms was not meant for self defense in your home, but I'll play and yes you do.

A ten round magazine gives little room for error if there is more than one intruder. To say that this is never the case one only has
to look at the recent news article concerning the man and his son in Florida who killed two intruders and one got away. I for one
served in the military for over 20 years and can tell you from first hand experience from firing firearms hundreds of times in many different
situations that in the heat of the moment when your heart is raising you are probably going to miss a couple of times. If there is 3 intruders
that doesn't give much room for error. But those who are creating these bills don't think you need a firearm to protect yourself anyway
let alone protect yourself against an out of control government, they believe the "first responders" job is to provide you protection.
Unfortunately, they are called first responders for a reason: they are responding to a crime that has already been committed.

Not with a pistol grip Mossberg you don't



Six is more than enough I assure you. You can buy one holds 8 if you are truly pathetic with a gun, but I think if six guys were on the porch breaking in, I could put lead in all of them.

_________________