The founders of this country and their ancestors dealt with tyrants that would arrest you, kill you, tax you, question you because they felt like it. WheN they had the opportunity to create a new country, everything they designed is around ensuring the power is with the individual and that individual freedoms are protected forever. The bill of RIGHTS outlined 10 rights that cannot be violated by the Government. I imagine when they decided the order, they started with the most important ones. First, freedom of speech. An individual can speak his mind and not be arrested or killed. The second most important individual right was the right to bear arms. They viewed the individual's right to arm and not be limited by Government as critical to preserving the power of the individual.

Therefore, the right to bear arms in a similar manner as the Government is intended to always preserve the individual's rights and to keep the power with the individual and not with the Government. The actual ability to bear arms is important, but also as important is the symbolic nature of power/guns being with the individual and not limited by the Government. Joe Biden said "why do you need 30 bullets to hunt?" Hunting has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. It is making it clear that rights always rest with the individual first. And lets be honest, they really want to ban guns and this is a first step limiting clips to 10 shots. I can pop a new clip in 1 second, so what happens when we have another mass shooting using a 10 round clip. " people don't need 10 shots, limit it to 3". Next thing you know, guns are banned.

That my friend is why the second amendment is so important. The founding fathers put a lot of thought into it and it was the result of hundreds of years of tyranny. If you limit gun rights, then you begin to limit other freedoms. You can NEVER give an inch.

(01-25-2013 07:42 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  And lets be honest, they really want to ban guns and this is a first step limiting clips to 10 shots. I can pop a new clip in 1 second, so what happens when we have another mass shooting using a 10 round clip. " people don't need 10 shots, limit it to 3".

If you're that fast with a 'clip'....just imagine how fast you could be with a magazine!

Thought I'd add this here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6Ik8qDR1SI

Argggg........ I hate improper usage of terms....

Stop saying clips, none of you fought in WW2.

Clip:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clip_(ammunition)

Magazine:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_(firearms)

(02-01-2013 01:42 PM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  Argggg........ I hate improper usage of terms....

Stop saying clips, none of you fought in WW2.

Clip:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clip_(ammunition)

Magazine:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_(firearms)

That irritates me as well.
People would get it right if they ever got that 'M1 thumb'.

(01-25-2013 12:06 PM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(01-25-2013 10:48 AM)BLEEDITRED Wrote:  I'll gracefully bow out and let you guys continue in your ****** ****. Carry on.

....without answering the very simple, straight-forward question I asked.

Gotta love how people "bow out" of an argument without ever having actually argued their point, but cite the "radicalism" of their opponents as justification for quitting. Fallacy at its finest.

Tag back in.

Because their main purpose is to kill. That's what they were created for. I don't give two ***** if you just really like using it at the range. Or that it's your "right."

AGAIN, my sinuses suck, and I don't like having to go back to the store every week and half for meds. But I can't buy more than one box of sudafed at a time because of the meth head dipshits. Oh well. Get over it.

Sorry your reading comprehension sucks.

(01-25-2013 12:18 PM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  What I find disturbing is how quick these anti gun people are to label gun owners as dangerous and as lunatics simply because they own guns. I was equated to a mass murderer on Facebook because I posted about finding those magazines.

I work full time, go to school full time, pay my taxes, and every once in a while I go shooting as a hobby.

But I'm a lunatic and a mass murderer...

Logical thinking isn't possible with people who are filled with fear and anger.

What I find disturbing is that calling for tighter regulations means anti gun in your eye and the "mine is bigger than yours" guys.

(01-25-2013 12:18 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  

(01-18-2013 04:51 PM)BLEEDITRED Wrote:  The car/doctor/etc analogy is so not even relevant I'm not going to bother.

It is relevant in the sense that your argument is "if we can only save one life" etc. If that were really the motivation, then "assault rifles" would be extremely, extremely low on the list. You seem to not like to bother with things that you cannot argue against. And, yes, "only" 300 as opposed to the 468 killed by hammers.

Quote: Logical thinking isn't possible with people who are filled with fear and anger.

The anti-gun rights groups are just as guilty of fear-mongering and appealing to emotions as the pro-rights groups, if not more-so.

It is not relevevant because there ARE TIGHTER REGULATIONS IN PLACE CONTROLLING THE USAGE OF THOSE GOODS.

I have to show that I can legally and lawfully operate a car. I have to get registered in a state and thereby national database. I have to take a written test to make sure that I know and understand the rules.

A doctor has to go to school for at least 8 years. And obtain practical experience. And serve on residencies to show competencies.

Do these end all reckless behavior. Of ******* course not. So, because it doesn't then, we should scrap those requirements and just go willy nilly? "Want to have that M.D. behind your name? Come take our 2 hour course and we'll have you operating in no time!" "New, and a limited supply! 2013 Ford without turn signals, because why the **** should you have to show people that you're changing lanes!"

(01-25-2013 02:11 PM)johndavidblue Wrote:  Bow out? Now out if what? You didn't contribute anything.

[:domokun::lauramac:quote='BLEEDITRED' pid='8883431' dateline='1359128910']
I'll gracefully bow out and let you guys continue in your ****** ****. Carry on.

I'm still laughing though at the comment that I am myopic. Haha. Again, thank god that this board, and the lunatics on it, do not represent the majority of Americans.

[/quote]

Sorry you can't read well either.

Tag back out.

(02-04-2013 03:55 PM)BLEEDITRED Wrote:  

(01-25-2013 12:06 PM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(01-25-2013 10:48 AM)BLEEDITRED Wrote:  I'll gracefully bow out and let you guys continue in your ****** ****. Carry on.

....without answering the very simple, straight-forward question I asked.

Gotta love how people "bow out" of an argument without ever having actually argued their point, but cite the "radicalism" of their opponents as justification for quitting. Fallacy at its finest.

Tag back in.

Because their main purpose is to kill. That's what they were created for. I don't give two ***** if you just really like using it at the range. Or that it's your "right."

AGAIN, my sinuses suck, and I don't like having to go back to the store every week and half for meds. But I can't buy more than one box of sudafed at a time because of the meth head ********. Oh well. Get over it.

Sorry your reading comprehension sucks.

So, how is an "assault rifle" any different than any other gun? Aren't they all designed to kill?

Also, you are quite wrong in saying that their main purpose is to kill. If that were true, there would be a whole lot more dead people around as the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country. None of the cosmetic features that cause a rifle to become an "assault rifle" make it more deadly, so again, what is your objection?

The fact is that the AR-15 shoots a round that was designed to be less deadly. The 5.56 cartridge was designed to be more likely to maim than kill. So, while it would still stop an enemy combatant, it would not kill as many. This characteristic also means that it has a relatively low recoil, which is why is it the weapon of choice for many who engage in recreational shooting.

Sorry to actually bring facts into a argument that you are dead-set on basing on hyperbole and hysteria, but that's the way debate works.

(02-04-2013 05:29 PM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 03:55 PM)BLEEDITRED Wrote:  

(01-25-2013 12:06 PM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(01-25-2013 10:48 AM)BLEEDITRED Wrote:  I'll gracefully bow out and let you guys continue in your ****** ****. Carry on.

....without answering the very simple, straight-forward question I asked.

Gotta love how people "bow out" of an argument without ever having actually argued their point, but cite the "radicalism" of their opponents as justification for quitting. Fallacy at its finest.

Tag back in.

Because their main purpose is to kill. That's what they were created for. I don't give two ***** if you just really like using it at the range. Or that it's your "right."

AGAIN, my sinuses suck, and I don't like having to go back to the store every week and half for meds. But I can't buy more than one box of sudafed at a time because of the meth head ********. Oh well. Get over it.

Sorry your reading comprehension sucks.

So, how is an "assault rifle" any different than any other gun? Aren't they all designed to kill?

Also, you are quite wrong in saying that their main purpose is to kill. If that were true, there would be a whole lot more dead people around as the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country. None of the cosmetic features that cause a rifle to become an "assault rifle" make it more deadly, so again, what is your objection?

The fact is that the AR-15 shoots a round that was designed to be less deadly. The 5.56 cartridge was designed to be more likely to maim than kill. So, while it would still stop an enemy combatant, it would not kill as many. This characteristic also means that it has a relatively low recoil, which is why is it the weapon of choice for many who engage in recreational shooting.

Sorry to actually bring facts into a argument that you are dead-set on basing on hyperbole and hysteria, but that's the way debate works.

Hahahaha.

(02-04-2013 05:34 PM)BLEEDITRED Wrote:  Hahahaha.

Perhaps I should have said "less likely to kill, and more likely to maim". However, the point remains, if all you want to do is kill people, there are way better options than a AR-15 you pick another cartridge.

This is a 5.56 mm NATO round next to the 7.62 mm NATO round that it replaced.

Not sure how true this is, but my understanding is that the 5.56 was designed to maim more so that during warfare the enemy would get bogged down in treating the injured vs dealing with dead bodies.

Regardless of how you feel about those of us who choose to operate and enjoy so-called "assault rifles" recreationally, it is our right. Because of that fact, there's nothing that can be done about the rifles that are already in our possession...at least not legally.

Both sides feel their argument is justified based on their beliefs, and let's be honest, none of us are going to change our opinion on the matter. There are plenty of countries on this planet who do not allow these types of weapons to be owned by their populations, but our country does. So, there is one sure fire method for you to get your way on this specific issue, move.

No one says you must own one yourself if you live in the United States, and God knows none of us want people with mental issues to have 'em...but, if a law-abiding citizen chooses to purchase an AR-15 or an AK-47, well, that's their right and the rest of us must accept it. Even if another AWB passes, forms of these rifles will still be avalable, they aren't going anywhere.

(02-05-2013 06:50 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  Not sure how true this is, but my understanding is that the 5.56 was designed to maim more so that during warfare the enemy would get bogged down in treating the injured vs dealing with dead bodies.

That is correct. However, it also tumbles on impact.

(02-08-2013 10:51 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  

Regardless of how you feel about those of us who choose to operate and enjoy so-called "assault rifles" recreationally, it is our right. Because of that fact, there's nothing that can be done about the rifles that are already in our possession...at least not legally.

Both sides feel their argument is justified based on their beliefs, and let's be honest, none of us are going to change our opinion on the matter. There are plenty of countries on this planet who do not allow these types of weapons to be owned by their populations, but our country does. So, there is one sure fire method for you to get your way on this specific issue, move.

No one says you must own one yourself if you live in the United States, and God knows none of us want people with mental issues to have 'em...but, if a law-abiding citizen chooses to purchase an AR-15 or an AK-47, well, that's their right and the rest of us must accept it. Even if another AWB passes, forms of these rifles will still be avalable, they aren't going anywhere.

It shouldn't be. There is absolutely no reason for a civilian to have that kind of weapon.

(02-10-2013 02:34 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(02-08-2013 10:51 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  

Regardless of how you feel about those of us who choose to operate and enjoy so-called "assault rifles" recreationally, it is our right. Because of that fact, there's nothing that can be done about the rifles that are already in our possession...at least not legally.

Both sides feel their argument is justified based on their beliefs, and let's be honest, none of us are going to change our opinion on the matter. There are plenty of countries on this planet who do not allow these types of weapons to be owned by their populations, but our country does. So, there is one sure fire method for you to get your way on this specific issue, move.

No one says you must own one yourself if you live in the United States, and God knows none of us want people with mental issues to have 'em...but, if a law-abiding citizen chooses to purchase an AR-15 or an AK-47, well, that's their right and the rest of us must accept it. Even if another AWB passes, forms of these rifles will still be avalable, they aren't going anywhere.

It shouldn't be. There is absolutely no reason for a civilian to have that kind of weapon.

The second amendment which was intended to put the power in the hands of the individual. It is symbolic as much as the actual tangible gun. When the founding fathers created the Bill of rights they viewed this as the second most important. And hunting has nothing to do with it.

(02-10-2013 02:34 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  It shouldn't be. There is absolutely no reason for a civilian to have that kind of weapon.

We have given plenty of reasons. That you disagree with those reason does not mean they don't exist.

(02-10-2013 02:34 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  It shouldn't be. There is absolutely no reason for a civilian to have that kind of weapon.

Not your place to tell me what I do and do not need. Not the governments either.

(02-11-2013 12:16 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  

(02-10-2013 02:34 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  It shouldn't be. There is absolutely no reason for a civilian to have that kind of weapon.

Not your place to tell me what I do and do not need. Not the governments either.

Are you a conservative?