Skip to main content

View Diary: Really, Gun Owners of America? HCR Will Take Your Guns Away? (233 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  brady bill, assault weapons ban, (0+ / 0-)

    I'll stop arguing with you when you start agreeing with me.

    by bourbonblue on Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 02:42:33 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Which Ronald Reagan supported (14+ / 0-)

      And if you think you need to own an assault rifle to keep your family safe, I suggest moving to a different neighborhood.

      In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

      by blue aardvark on Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 02:45:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  re: Brady (6+ / 0-)

      So somethings wrong with registering to ensure that felons and psychos don't get guns?

      Assault weapons bill must not have passed or been overturned because you can go to any gun show in the West and buy an SK or AK. Fully Automatic? That's been banned since the 1930's.

      •  no it expired (0+ / 0-)

        but holder wants to reinstate it.

        I'll stop arguing with you when you start agreeing with me.

        by bourbonblue on Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 03:07:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And that's sane. (0+ / 0-)

          Your problem with it being...?

          My life is an open book, and I want a rewrite!

          by trumpeter on Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 03:53:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  laundry list of guns (0+ / 0-)

            The laws banned specific guns by name. Not because they were more deadly than other guns, but because they looked "scary".

            In one hand I have a civilian AK-47, semi auto. In the other hand I have a 12 gauge full of buckshot. Which one would you rather be shot with, if you had to choose? Which one does the law ban?

            The AK-47 puts a tiny hole in you, with a lot of trauma near the wound. It may overpenetrate and hit your neighbor's house too.

            The 12 gauge puts a big ass hole in you (more precisely, a big spread of tiny, very painful and deadly holes), with lots of trauma all over the place. They'll have to scrape you off the wall to put you back together.

            But we ban the AK-47. Why? Is it somehow more of a threat to us because it can have a bayonet?

            I own a hipoint 995, which has a similar shape, takes 9mm rounds, semi auto, but has no folding stock or bayonet mount and thus was complely legal (and in fact, was deliberately designed to be legal under the AWB). (note also, this model of weapon was carried by eric harris during columbine, so clearly it's dangerous, like all guns).

            So the law, in essence, was dumb. It banned guns that made people feel uncomfortable, without regard to the damage that could be done by the gun, or the risk it posed, if any at all.

            Note the guns people are always saying they're not in favor of banning are hunting guns. Yes, guns specifically designed to kill mammals. Not target rifles, those scare the crap out of people. But ones designed specifically to cause maximum damage to deer, coyotes, wild boar, and other animals? Sure, why not!

            (I say this not because I advocate such bans (I most definitely do not), but because I want to point out the ridiculousness of a ban where you allow hunting guns)

            •  It's the rapid shooting point......not the size (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              trumpeter

              of the hole.  It's about taking guns that can be used to RAPIDLY SHOOT lots of people at a time out of the arena [ONLY place for the rapid shooting of multiple people is in military/law ENFORCEMENT [possibly] arena].

              But then I'm betting you knew what the point really is....hm.

              •  semi auto (0+ / 0-)

                Not at all - they didn't ban semi auto guns, see again the hipoint 995.

                They didn't ban the number of magazines you can own (the practical difference between a 5 round mag and 10 round mag is very little unless you're being fired on, if you're just mowing people down, stopping for 3 seconds to switch magazines is irrelevant). So if you carry 5 5 round mags, you still are legal under AWB and you have 25 bullets. Carry a purse or utility bag and you could have a giant pile of loaded magazines there.

                Even if it wasn't semi auto, moving the action isn't that big of an impediment in a massacre either. Hell, just watch a movie where someone fires off shotguns rapidly once. That's not something made up for the silver screen, and the actor isn't some sort of master gun expert that has special speedfiring abilities.

                Full auto weapons have been illegal since the '30s.

                And while you say that only the police need to shoot multiple people, you assume the police will be there to defend your home if someone breaks in. It will take the police at least 3 minutes to get to my house, in a well funded highly populated suburban city. I'm not waiting for them to show up as the prowlers take me and my family hostage or murder us. If I'm in a firmly entrenched position, I have no qualms using my 995 to hold that position. I'm not some sort of crazy survivalist gun nut. But I know there are bad people out there who mean me harm, and have met these people before under different circumstances.

                I've had a home invasion in a previous place when I wasn't home, but the crackheads who did it wouldn't have known if I were there or not anyway.

                So to hell with you telling me what I do and don't need with no real justification other than "it sounds scary" or "it looks scary" or "it shoots real fast".

        •  Oh, he moves the bar now (0+ / 0-)

          So NOW it's "holder wants..."??? There isn't ONE honest, rational bone in your body, is there :(!?

    •  AGAIN, (0+ / 0-)

      That freakin assault ban EXPIRED 5 YRS AGO!  Gawd, get your lies straight!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site