Heavy-Duty Restricted Guns Legally Sold in Texas

January 16, 2013

  • January 16, 2013 at 2:03 pm
    Captain Planet says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 42
    Thumb down 47

    “Any sane person would not try it,” he said of potential attackers.

    Sane people are not the ones I’m concerned about. It’s the insane that kill people. This place sounds pretty well controlled, but why does any regular civilian need a gun that can bring down an airplane? No, I’m not opposed to civilians having fire arms. But what’s next? Do we allow civilians access to missiles and nuclear weapons? I’m sure some CEO will buy it. Buy it with all of that trickle-up money we’ve been passing to him.

    • January 17, 2013 at 2:30 pm
      Jon says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 14
      Thumb down 2

      Insane people wouldn’t be able to break into the vault to get to them, or get past the armed and trained employees.

      The “gun that can bring down an airplane” is pretty much sensationalist hyperbole. Yes, a .50 cal can and historically has been used for anti-aircraft purposes. However, data from the Dept. of the Navy regarding the whole of data collection from World War II (when the .50 was a shiny piece of equipment) the stats are this:

      Total enemy aircraft that came within AA range of US warships in WWII: 7,600-7,800 aircraft

      Total enemy aircraft shot down using a .50 cal (Ma deuce): 65.5

      Total .50 cal rounds of ammunition expended in AA action: 729,836.

      Total .50 cal rounds per aircraft shot down: 11,143.

      The .50 cal machine gun had an effective “shoot down” record of 0.86%.

      This is over the course of the entire war, and in the hands of skilled naval personnel who were trained in combat usage of the weapon.

      Something tells me we won’t have to worry about some rabid radical using a ma deuce to terrorize the skies…

      The actual report from the Navy is here: http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/antiaircraft_action_summary_wwii.htm

      • January 17, 2013 at 3:02 pm
        Ron says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 9
        Thumb down 5

        Sensationalist hyperbole like “they want to to take away all of our guns”?

        • January 18, 2013 at 10:03 am
          Jon says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 10
          Thumb down 2

          Never said that wasn’t sensationalist.

          In fact, the only politician on record to say it is Sen. Feinstein–the hypocrite who proposed that while being only one of three people to be issued a concealed carry permit by the city of San Francisco.

        • January 18, 2013 at 10:07 am
          Jon says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 4
          Thumb down 0

          Although, to also be fair–there are a number of political action websites that are calling for mass firearm bans. (Credo, change.org, etc.)

      • January 18, 2013 at 1:00 pm
        InsGuy says:
        Hot debate. What do you think?
        Thumb up 8
        Thumb down 12

        @Jon: Well, we aren’t at war. I think you missed the point. It’s about the fire power.

        Imagine if you will that same gun mounted on truck, or bridge aimed at YOUR VEHICLE during RUSH HOUR. How many vehicles do you think he could hit with 11,143 rounds. Think the hit rate would still be 0.86%??!!!

        Get some perspective people!

        • January 18, 2013 at 2:16 pm
          Patti Cake in the East says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 12
          Thumb down 3

          Talk about sensationalizing…get a grip, InsGuy, will ya?!!

        • January 18, 2013 at 2:37 pm
          FFA says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 8
          Thumb down 0

          I though we were at war? Did our boys come home and I’ve been living in a cave?

        • January 22, 2013 at 12:43 pm
          Jon says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 4
          Thumb down 1

          The article’s speculation was the .50′s ability to shoot down an aircraft. I merely posted actual facts that show the article’s statement to be sensationalist hyperbole, and not very accurate reporting.

          What you’re posting is utter nonsense. Hollywood fiction.

          Show me one example of your theory having happened in the US.

          The only perspective you’re showing is that you shouldn’t have anything to do with the firearms debate until you can actually do your own research, and be able to discuss the matter intelligently.

  • January 16, 2013 at 2:34 pm
    Kurt says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 13
    Thumb down 7

    Playthings for the wealthy. Lovely.

  • January 16, 2013 at 3:18 pm
    Mike says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 37
    Thumb down 16

    Captain Planet “need” has nothing to do with it! When will you guys understand that the 2nd Amendment isn’t about duck hunting! I have over 2 dozen semi automatics in my collection and I only wish that I could add a couple of the full autos. Yep, as Kurt says it would be so “lovely”!

    • January 17, 2013 at 8:55 am
      Captain Planet says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 26
      Thumb down 15

      Because the founding fathers could never, in their wildest imaginations, forecasted these types of weapons being used to mass murder Amercian lives. I’m all for the 2nd Amendment, really, I am. But, we need to have a conversation about what is intended for the military and what is intended for civilians. Do you need clips with 100 rounds? Can we limit rounds at least? There needs to be a conversation.

      • January 17, 2013 at 9:55 am
        Padre says:
        Hot debate. What do you think?
        Thumb up 23
        Thumb down 14

        “Because the founding fathers could never, in their wildest imaginations, forecasted these types of weapons being used to mass murder Amercian lives.”

        You mean the same Founding Fathers who used their “assault weapons” to destroy Native American tribes?

        Apparently Captain Planet doesn’t bother studying history or statistics. Blunt instruments and knives kill more Americans than guns; can we have a conversation about what’s intended for the baseball field and kitchen instead of the streets? FDA rubberstamped approvals of Big Pharma’s products kill over a 100,000 a year, how about that conversation? Hell, auto accidents kill more people than guns in this country; wanna talk about how much safer we’d be if limited to sneakers? Hey, the Founding Fathers never pictured anyone going faster than ten miles per hour, how could they have forecasted murder machines going 100mph? Yes, there needs to be conversation…, intelligent conversation; not the knee jerk response of that part of the population with the memory capacity of a goldfish (fish OR cracker).

        • January 17, 2013 at 11:58 am
          Captain Planet says:
          Hot debate. What do you think?
          Thumb up 20
          Thumb down 13

          Difference is, guns are meant to kill people. That’s what they are manufactured to do. Baseball bats are manufactured to hit a ball. Knives are manufactured to cut things, mainly food. Big Pharma’s drugs (I agree with you here actually) are manufactured to assist people. Cars are manufactured to take people from point A to point B. Semi auto and auto weapons are manufactured to kill, kill many, and kill quickly. Not knee-jerk, heck, Ronald Reagan called for the same controls. So, we’ve been talking about it for over 30 years.

          • January 17, 2013 at 2:45 pm
            Jon says:
            Hot debate. What do you think?
            Thumb up 20
            Thumb down 23

            No. Guns are meant to kill. Not just people. They are a weapon. A tool like any other tool for that purpose.

            The kife was originally designed as much to be a killing tool as it was a utility tool.

            A baseball bat is just a specialized evolution of the club–man’s first weapon used to kill.

            There’s a guy on youtube that accurately shooting 3 arrows from a bow (not a high-tech one) at 3 separate targets in under 1.5 seconds.

            Fully automatic (IE, *real* assault weapons…not the ones “banned” in 1994) weapons have always been rigorously controlled by the government. And as the article states, not one legally owned civilian automatic weapons was used in a criminal manner.

            Semi-automatic weapons are not the bogeyman the anti-gun crowd are making them out to be.

          • January 17, 2013 at 5:02 pm
            Ronald Reagan also says:
            Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 15
            Thumb down 1

            called for and closed a lot of mental health institutions and look where we are now.

        • January 18, 2013 at 2:19 pm
          Patti Cake in the East says:
          Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 6
          Thumb down 27

          Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

          • January 22, 2013 at 1:46 pm
            Patti Cake in the East says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 3

            Wow. I can see by all of the thumbs downs my comment received that the majority of you on this blog have no problem with abortion….late term or otherwise. Do you all go to church, too?

      • January 19, 2013 at 1:23 pm
        REB says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 8
        Thumb down 10

        Yes. We need clips with 100 rounds and more. If the totally criminal US government has it. We the people, must have it. The US government is by far the greatest threat to our lives and our freedoms than any other.

      • January 22, 2013 at 3:14 pm
        Marketing Guy says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 5
        Thumb down 1

        Amendment II

        A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

        No, the founding fathers probably didn’t forecast the types of weapons that would evolve and the depraived acts a very small minority of people would commit with them. What they did forcast is that governments become tyranical overtime due to corruption and power. Basically what they were providing was a means for civilians to maintain checks and balances on their government.

  • January 16, 2013 at 3:39 pm
    Realist says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 17

    Well, Your President, BHO, wants civilians to take over the role of NASA regarding rockets and missiles………..and they are stepping up. Not enough cronies work in that sector so he abandons it…….

  • January 17, 2013 at 4:02 am
    Anthony Clifton says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 9

    seriously, how does this guy know what fake weapons were used at the Sandy Hook trauma based mind control “Fantasy” film project for Bolshevik gun control…program ?

    flashback…

    • January 17, 2013 at 11:50 am
      Kev1n says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 8
      Thumb down 1

      It is sad that I can’t tell who is being tongue-in-cheek and who is being serious…

      • January 22, 2013 at 10:29 am
        jw says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        Exactly. I’m so confused.

  • January 17, 2013 at 12:45 pm
    happyface says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 16
    Thumb down 7

    over 600 children die in car crashes each month-22 per day–20,000 are injured-2600 adults die in car crashes per month-ban autos-people can’t drive-it is an insane world-people are stupid-smoking kills 30,000 per month-ban smoking–i could go on and on…..

    • January 17, 2013 at 1:52 pm
      Captain Planet says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 17
      Thumb down 10

      How many of those theater-goers or Sandy Hook kids would have been murdered – yes, murdered, if the idiot would have been armed with a bat, a knife, or even a car? Again, the sole design of an assault weapon is to kill. The design of a car is to transport. You want to kill yourself with some Marlboros – that’s up to you. Just don’t smoke them in the restaurant or bar by me, that’s all I ask. I don’t need to be coughing up your second-hand smoke.

      • January 17, 2013 at 2:05 pm
        ralph says:
        Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 16
        Thumb down 5

        So, Cap’n–

        Is the solution to ban ALL guns or just the assault weapons? If your solution is to ban just the assault weapons, I’m pretty sure the ones that were used at Columbine were banned at the time, but guess what? Harris and Klebold still got them.

        • January 18, 2013 at 9:36 am
          Ron says:
          Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 20
          Thumb down 1

          ralph,

          There is no one solution for this complex problem. It seems like the pro-gun people think that those in favor of some gun control (banning assault firearms and lage capacity magazines) believe that banning guns will solve the whole problem. They do not, but they think it would help.

          • January 18, 2013 at 1:18 pm
            ralph says:
            Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 13
            Thumb down 0

            Just for the sake of arguing–How many of the massacres involved large capacity magazines? My recollection is that almost all involved one person using MULTIPLE firearms, most of which were and are legal to own.

            I’m not saying nothing needs to be done, but all this grandstanding needs to stop. There is, and unfortunately always will be, evil in this world. You can legislate all you want, but it won’t make a bit of difference.

      • January 17, 2013 at 2:52 pm
        Jon says:
        Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 21
        Thumb down 4

        Theater goers? Potentially much more. The guy had over 30 homemade grenades in his apartment. The potential devastation if he used those instead of firearms would’ve been drastically worse.

        The same day as the Sandy Hook shooting, a guy in China did the same thing–only with a knife. The loss of life wasn’t nearly the same, but very close to the same number of children were victims.

        The honest, bare-bones truth to the matter is this: If a whackjob decides he wants to commit an atrocity, he will find a way to do it.

        You didn’t see this crap 20-30 years ago. Why? Because the media didn’t make the focus the perpetrator. Now these lowlifes think they can finally see some sort of twisted justification to their existence because the world will at least know who they are–if only by what they did.

        • January 17, 2013 at 4:04 pm
          Captain Planet says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 9
          Thumb down 7

          I had said with a bat, knife, or car. But yes, bombs obviously have a greater impact in most cases than do assault weapons. Those bombs were designed to blow up his apartment and surrounding property and lives, too. Can’t we at least attempt to make it more difficult for whackjobs to commit their atrocities? Why openly give them the means? That’s like offering a drink to an alcoholic along with the keys to his car.

          • January 18, 2013 at 10:24 am
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 2

            You posited a knife, bat, etc, but ignored the reality that he had greater weapons of destruction in his possession than what he decided to use. The grenades were not meant to destroy the apartment. He had other explosives wired to do that. We still don’t know what his ultimate plans were for the grenades.

            The car analogy unfortunately does not work in your favor. Do you have any idea the number of illegal drivers there are in the US? It’s astronomical. People driving without a license, without insurance, without registration, etc. It’s just a bad analogy. In fact, there are several articles in the last few years about people with multiple DUI’s (some as high as 14) still driving, still driving drunk, and still killing people.

          • January 18, 2013 at 11:55 am
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 4

            We have laws against drinking and driving. We regulate cars more than we do guns, and cars are not intended to kill people. Guns are. Sounds like some states need to do a better job of cracking down on their drunken drivers. I’m all for that. Let’s also further regulate the way in which we disperse instruments intended for death.

        • January 22, 2013 at 11:42 am
          Todd says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 4

          Jon-if you are referring to the Chinese Knife incident recently, there was NO loss of life. NONE. Still tragic that children were injured by a nutjob, but none were killed. I wonder how many would have been killed in that theatre if Holmes had but a knife? How many would have been killed at Sandy Hook if the shooter had no guns, but a baseball bat? Which would you rather face, a knife or a 30Cal semi automatic with 20 rounds?

          • January 22, 2013 at 12:29 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            Banning guns, Holmes still had over 30 grenades.

            Bar that, he had degrees in science and the ability to make poison gas.

            Again, you miss the point. Banning guns will not prevent whackjobs from committing atrocities.

            1) There is (to my knowledge) no such thing as a 30 cal semi-auto. That only makes it clear you have no working knowledge of firearms, and are reacting in a knee-jerk uninformed position.

            2) Honestly? One on One? I’ll take facing the gun. It’s easier to miss once you’re 10+ yards away. Even being significantly good at hand-to-hand combat–someone coming at you with a knife is going to cut you. Badly. Probably more than once. Someone very competent with a knife is going to kill you, unless you get very very lucky.

          • January 22, 2013 at 12:35 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            Furthermore,

            Please tell me how banning semi-automatic weapons, or high capacity magazines will keep said weapons/magazines from the hands of criminals.

            No anti-gun supporter has been able to answer that question.

            Because you can’t. A handgun ban only provides the illusion of safety, not the reality.

            The Virginia Tech shooter had two semi-automatic handguns. 1 that held 15 rounds, and 1 that held the “ban-approved” 10 rounds. He was still horrendously lethal. Because he had a backpack full of extra magazines. The time it takes to shoot 1 20 round magazine is not significantly less than it is to drop a spent magazine and reload a fresh one.

            It should also be pointed out that semi-automatic handguns are technology that is literally over a century old. This is not some fancy new technology we’re talking about, folks. So why is it *now* that it is such an issue? What are we, as a society, doing *now* that this kind of tragedy is so prevalent? (Hint–it’s not the availability of owning a semi-automatic handgun)

      • January 18, 2013 at 2:47 pm
        FFA says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 2

        Or if someone in the front office had a loaded gun ready to roll?

    • January 17, 2013 at 3:10 pm
      Ron says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 17
      Thumb down 8

      happyface,
      How many more would die and get injured if we didn’t have speed limits, stop signs, drunk driving laws, etc. Do these laws get broken some times? Yes, but it puts some control and order on the road.
      Gun control people do not expect to end all gun violence, just try to minimize the impact. And most are not looking to ban all guns.

      • January 17, 2013 at 4:00 pm
        Captain Planet says:
        Hot debate. What do you think?
        Thumb up 14
        Thumb down 8

        Well stated, Ron. It’s that position I agree with, not banning all guns. We need tighter controls in place, though.

        • January 17, 2013 at 4:13 pm
          ralph says:
          Hot debate. What do you think?
          Thumb up 16
          Thumb down 7

          The city of Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. It also has one of the highest murder rates. Tightening the laws will do nothing; criminals will still find a way to get their guns, just as they always have.

          • January 17, 2013 at 4:54 pm
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 11

            Most of those murders were committed with handguns. I personally would like to avoid the mass murdering we are seeing. If either of those idiots prefaced above would have had had guns, they wouldn’t have been able to pick as many off as they did. Are people still going to get shot and murdered? Of course. But, if we save even just 1 life by tightening controls, isn’t that life worth it? Before you answer the hypothetical question, it’s your wife/son/daughter/dad/mom/friend that was saved by those controls.

          • January 18, 2013 at 7:40 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 2

            When is the last time a mass murder with semi-automatic weapons occurred in Chicago?

          • January 18, 2013 at 9:20 am
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 10

            Who cares when the last time was? It’s about trying to prevent future incidents I’m concerned with.

          • January 18, 2013 at 9:40 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 2

            Cpt’n,
            I was asking ralph because I do not believe his point is relevant to the current conversation.

          • January 18, 2013 at 11:56 am
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 3

            Sorry Ron, not trying to argue with you, just pointing out I am concerned with moving forward rather than dwelling on the past. I understand your point.

        • February 6, 2013 at 12:28 pm
          Padre says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Prohibition worked SO WELL with alcohol and drugs that you want to expand it to the 80 million gun owners in the US? Haven’t you noticed that, while gun crimes dropped in the UK an Australia with their gun laws, violent crimes went up. Or that some of the largest drug busts made were well over a ton? Or that the government admits to stopping no more than 7% of the smuggling? Yes, guns are designed to kill. So what? An armed society is a polite society. Anything can be used to kill someone, the truely psychotic won’t let even a complete gun ban stop them. But a government seeking total control of its populace does not want them armed and that is the real strategy here. Further, such a program pushed by a POTUS who has killed more children than ALL of the SSRI deranged shooters we’ve seen combined is a whole new plateau of hypocrisy on the use of “its for the children”. If tighter controls worked, DC and Chcago would be two of the safest cities in the US.

  • January 17, 2013 at 4:53 pm
    Nebraskan says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 14
    Thumb down 1

    If we could just find a way to regulate the bad people….all of this would be a non-issue.

    • January 18, 2013 at 7:41 am
      Ron says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 0

      We need less regulations, not more. Right??

      • January 18, 2013 at 9:09 am
        Nebraskan says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 8
        Thumb down 0

        I don’t know!!! I’m confused! :)

        I was just trying to make the point that you can regulate guns, knives, bats, etc…but it is not going to stop bad people from doing bad things.

        (For some reason, yesterday afternoon it seemed funny to me. Now, I read it again this morning, and I realize….it’s really not…it’s been a long week.)

        • January 18, 2013 at 9:16 am
          Ron says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 6
          Thumb down 0

          Isn’t this fun??
          I know what you were getting at. I just wanted to throw a little sarcasm out there.
          The whole argument from both sides is very hyperbolic and consists mostly of rhetoric and fear.

        • January 18, 2013 at 9:25 am
          Captain Planet says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 6
          Thumb down 5

          No, it’s not going to stop all the bad people. Though, it will make it more difficult for them to commit their crimes and that is a positive. How can less crime, less death, less parents mourning their deceased 5 year old daughter be a bad thing? Keep your current ARs, grandfather them in. Heck, keep selling them, but limit the number of rounds in a clip. We have to do something, status quo is failing us yet again.

  • January 17, 2013 at 7:35 pm
    watcher says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 4

    Sure wish those defending their second amendment rights so vociferously and vigorously would also defend my rights to not be forced to honor some religious concept of the “soul” as an argument against first trimester abortions. How does that freedom fit into your constructs? Seems to me if you defend the second, you ought to defend all the others so vehemently as well…and we sure as heck know that is not the reality……..

    • January 18, 2013 at 11:19 am
      Jon says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 0

      Some of us do.

      That’s more than half the problem. People have blinders on and assume that if you support one thing, you blindly follow party lines…

  • January 17, 2013 at 10:17 pm
    DAve Johnson says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 1

    The exact reason people buy machine guns is … money. They are one of the highest paying investments that exist. Returns averaging 20% per year are the norm. Now that you have mentioned it, they will increase even more.

  • January 18, 2013 at 10:16 am
    ralph says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 15
    Thumb down 0

    Look, I’m not a “gun nut.” Personally, I don’t own any weapons, nor do I think it’s completely necessary for someone to be able to purchase an anti-aircraft gun or bazooka. That being said, just because you tighten the laws on guns doesn’t mean you’re going to do anything about gun violence. What happened in Sandy Hook / Aurora / etc. is an absolute terrible tragedy, but all this grandstanding by our beloved politicians and Hollywood is ultimately going to do NOTHING. It’s all TALK. The same politicians that are screaming for tighter laws will be the ones taking an all expense paid hunting trip with their buddies next weekend, and the same celebrities begging us to do something about gun laws will be the same ones starring in the next Tarantino bloodbath. Regulate guns and ammunition all you want, at the end of the day someone who is set on committing a crime will still find a way to do so.

  • January 18, 2013 at 3:00 pm
    FFA says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 2

    My 12 g Shotgun has a plug in it so I cant load more then 3 shells at once. If my 12ga can be limited to three rounds, why cant everything else be? Give the duck a fighting chance and not someone a waco is pointing a semi auto at? Maybe I should just pull the clip out and blast Donald away.

    I believe in our constitution. I dont believe some waco has the right to take my life. I believe I have the right to defend my life.

    I believe in Carry and Conceal.

    Funny, a duck gets a better chance then people do.

  • January 18, 2013 at 3:20 pm
    Captain Planet says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 1

    Good points, FFA. Hunting people is much easier.

    You know what they say, FFA – if you can’t duck it…

  • January 19, 2013 at 1:13 pm
    REB says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 10

    Buying these weapons with government permission is useless. Hitler had his citizens register their guns, so that when he was ready to take the guns, he knew exactly where to get them. It’s an obligation for all decent citizens to obtain or manufacture restricted weapons in secret; Without government knowing about it, So that when the day comes that the government clamps down, the only way the maniacs in government will find out about our guns is when we are defending ourselves from their tyranny.

    To captain planet: I would trust the average citizen with nukes far more than I trust the totally criminal US government.

    • January 21, 2013 at 11:32 am
      Captain Planet says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 4

      REB – every American citizen can have all the automatic weapons they want, they still can’t overpower the most effective military force in the world. How much gold do you own? What about a survival seed kit or food insurance?

      Game over, REB has now introduced Godwin’s Law into the debate. Onto the next forum.

      • January 22, 2013 at 12:38 pm
        Jon says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 2

        The dude’s seriously off his rocker, Captain. I wouldn’t feed into it.

    • January 22, 2013 at 10:41 am
      jw says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 1

      Seriously? Please say you’re being facetious.

  • January 22, 2013 at 2:47 pm
    Wayne2 says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 0

    What is wrong with just enforcing the gun laws already out there? They already restrict firearm sales to criminals. Want to do better background checks? Sounds good to me. What to make the waiting period a little longer to accomplish that? Sounds reasonable. Want to tell law abiding citizens what they need or should or shouldn’t have really starts the problem. We aren’t the problem. Deal with criminals. The number of bullets the gun holds means nothing at all. Criminals could bring two guns. Open conversation is good and can be constructive but only if you go into it with realistic ideas. Making comments about wanting to own nuclear weapons or wanting to start a war with the government is not constructive and so we get nowhere.

  • January 22, 2013 at 5:37 pm
    Watcher says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    I own guns and am a strong bliever in the 2nd amendment. I generally don’t belive in gun control.
    I am disappointed that the debate is falling way short in terms of controlling the mentally ill. I t was in regans time when many mental institutions closed. However, the arguments were around illegal “imprisonment” of the mentally ill as it was looked upon by some in the same way as incarceration of criminals.
    I think that we need to overcome the reluctance to put away the mentally ill, and also rather than introduce new gun control laws, how about make the death penalty MANDATORY in all states where ANY crime is committed using a gun, regardless of whether or not anyone was killed or even wounded in the course of that criminal act.
    ANd since drugs and guns seem to go toether, maybe if drug dealing were made a death penalty offense, then we might solve our drug and our gun problem at the same time.
    Sounds extreme, but another gun law won’t make us any safer when our prisons are stuffed to the gills now



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features