Terms of Service
Get Listed Today!
Events & Announcements
Opinions & Responses
Captain Paul - GPS Info
Big Bass Photo Contest
Deer Video Contest
Big Buck Photo Contest
Trail Cam Contest
NEW Fishing Products
Ethanol Info Page
Louisiana Fish Records
Fly fishing Application
NEW Hunting Products
Louisiana Deer Records
2012-13 Hunting Regulations
2012-13 Waterfowl Regulations
Primitive Firearms Descriptions
Deer Hunting Video Contest
Hurricane Isaac Updates
Realtime River Flow/Gauges
SailFlow wind forecast
Ask Captain Paul
Grunts & Gobbles
Magazine Columns (continued)
Paddles 'N Puddles
The Boat Doctor
Submitted Fishing Videos
Submitted Hunting Videos
Jewelry / Pendents
You go ahead and give up your guns, democrat. I will keep mine. I read your past responses about voting in Obummer and how you support his views. I am just as upset about the innocent people losing their lives by some psycho, deranged killer as you are. I can say, everyone on this site is bewildered and upset, but I am not about to give up my guns. These murders just fueled the fire for people like you, democrat, who want us to relinquish our right to bear arms. You are in the minority on this site to just 'give up your guns'... Good luck with that comment here.
PEOPLE KILL NOT GUNS CONTROL PEOPLE IF YOU BREAK THE LAW YOU BELONG IN JAIL IF YOU KILL YOU BELONG IN HELL
Agree 100%. You do the crime, you do the time. Don't blame the gun, blame the shooter.
Sure give them up, the police will protect you.
They don't protect anybody, just react.
First guns, then freedom of speech.
I wish you lived next to me. I would place a sign in my front yard with an arrow facing your house. It would say this: 'My neighbor does not believe in the Right to Bear Arms. Go rob his house because he is unarmed!'
Someone can kill someone with a kitchen knife or an automobile !! You gonna take them too ?
I can't stand Obama supporters...the same day a man in China did the same thing at a school, but with a knife. People are people its going to happen, you can't stop it, you can only prevent it. I serve this country to keep my gun rights, you don't like it, move to another country.
Ole Ted would put the Stranglehold on ya if he read that.
Ignorance is bliss. The idea that ANY ban on firearms will prevent shootings is like believing prohibition will prevent alcohol consumption. Back to reality please.
Being you're willing to give up your guns, shoot me an e-mail and I'll be more than happy to meet with you to take them off your hands. I've been wanting to get an AR-15 for some time, but didn't really want to drop the money on one. But being that you're willing to give it away, I'll be more than happy help you out. It'll be a win- win situation, you got rid of your guns, and I'll have me an AR.
those kids would have no rights, if the right to bear arms didn't come first.
Do you realize that if this psycho couldnt have gotten guns he would have probably just built an IED or something else and hurt just as many or more people. Sadly if a psycho wants to commit mass murder theres not much we can do to stop it. The ONLY chance you will have to stop it is by killing them before they hurt you or someone else. What happend is a horrible tragedy but trying to use it to convince people that they should give up their guns is true insanity. I sleep better at night knowing if someone breaks into my house i dont have to pick up a phone, make a call, and wait for the police to show up before the situation is handled.
22 kids were killed in China the same day. 22 kids, by a man with a KNIFE. A man got into an elementary school. Look it up, it was on the Drudge Report. But you won't hear about this on mainstream media.
Are you now willing to give up your knives too?
The 22 in China were NOT killed; they were injured. Google it. This argument stinks; we need better ones, ones that don't lean on misinformation.
Ok king Obama supporter, let's move closer to home...I guess maybe 6 months ago now, either way this past year, Saint Amant, La, old couple with their son at home, home gets broken into, the robbers don't shoot, they cut their throats, argue that, in a country with with the RIGHT to bear arms. How about the woman who ran her husband over, the list goes on, stop getting off trying to pick apart a post trying to justify changing the constitution that people have died/die to keep. Thats saying they're lives weren't worth it, like I said before, this is America, I serve this country for my rights that have put in place and I want to keep them, you don't like it, do America a favor, submit a visa and get the HELL out.
That's about right: I insist on facts and reasonable arguments, and I'm branded King Obama supporter. You're not helping your cause, Joshua.
I'm also not too sure what you're trying to say. If it's that people will kill regardless of whether they have guns, then of course I agree. The difference that anti-gun people will point out is that a gun is far more efficient than a knife, or a car, or one's bare hands. It's also pretty easy to use, so that one who lacks the knowledge to build 'IEDs' or 'pipe bombs' (most everyone) can get get a substitute. If you think that gangly kid in Newtown could have killed nearly thirty people with a knife in the same amount of time, you're nuts.
Now, in my opinion, as a hunter for whom guns are absolutely essential but for whom ARs make little sense, massive thirty round clips could go. That would make it far more difficult for the next wacko to squeeze off sixty or so rounds (they always have a back up clip) in a matter of minutes. This isn't ideology; this is just straight up arithmetic.
These murders are too tragic to believe. The only thing that would have protected these children was an ARMED security guard or citizen. Ct. has some of the strictest gun controls in the nation and of course automatic assualt rifles are banned. The 911 TERRORISTS did not use a GUN. The states with cc laws have the lowest gun violence. U dont mess with granny if she might be packing. The ONLY means for the weak to protect themselves is thru legal gun ownership. Prayers to the victims and families.
It is easy and simple minded to think that gun control will prevent such tragedies but the FACTS don't bear this out. If you look around the world and back in history you will see that gun control doesn't protect the innocent it only protects the criminals and make their jobs (stealing and killing) easier.
Those are the FACTS... The facts aren't even debatable. It has ALWAYS been this way and it will ALWAYS be this way. And that is why the communist want bring up emotional tragedies when these subjects come up. They can't win with logic and FACTS!!!
Keep in mind also that we don't have the 2nd amendment because it allows you to protect yourself against crime. The second amendment is there to protect the people from being ruled by tyrants.
Why do you think the communist (aka democrats) pushed the 'living breathing document' garbage? Because they hate our constitution and want to change it... change us to communist. You might respond that 'hey, I am a democrat and I believe in the constitution!', well that only means that you believe in the constitution and have been tricked into voting from politicians that don't.
i agree with you 100%!! you are absolutly right on! the 2nd amendment is so we can protect ourselves against tyrants, like we have running our government today! no wonder obama wants to do away with it!! great comment!
I agree that gun control does not solve the problem of violence. That's the problem with the least thoughtful kind of anti-gun nuts: they think that by eliminating guns, they'll somehow eliminate murder. This is obviously absurd. But to imply that guns, especially the kind of guns designed for killing people (e.g. assault rifles with large-capacity clips), do not make murder easier is equally absurd. To be clear here, I'm a proud supporter of the second amendment, and find the recent kneejerk reactions of most on the left to be repugnant. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't consider supporting tighter regulations on the kinds of guns designed to kill people and on the ability of criminals and the severely mentally ill to acquire such arms.
And why you insist on calling all democrats communist is beyond me. Do you know what communism entails? Very few people believe in communism anymore, and the few that do are not taken seriously. Most democrats are capitalists just like you. I'm a democrat partly because of my commitment to the environment, the same environment that we all love on this forum. I read lots of posts complaining about the loss of wetlands in Louisiana and the failure of Louisiana's gov't to curtail that loss. Very few of these posts connect that loss to conservative policies, which tend to emphasize business (here, oil and gas) over concerns for the environment. I will continue to vote democrat until conservatives bridge that gap and stand up for things that do not immediately translate to dollars and cents.
u can never have tight enuf regulations to keep assault weapons out of the hands of crimminals, only the honest people!!!! the crimminals will always be able to get them no matter what regulations are in place and that is fact!!!
You know what is more to blame than guns = Hollywood movies , video games and hip hop music , kids today live in a fantasy world and have no repect for themselves let alone anyone else -------
I seriously doubt tubacka even owns an AR-15.
And leave it to a bleeding heart liberal to use this senseless, horrific tragedy just to get a rise out of members of this site and further his own agenda. I would say he should be ashamed, but obviously he has no shame.
i agree with that a lot!! but also parents want to be friends with their children instead of being parents!!! some parents will not tell their children no, because their kids mite get mad at them and their kids can munipulate their own parents!!! the big problem is, when the government took away disipline in schools and the parents right to give a little spanking every now and then, its been going downhill ever since!!!!
(cont. page 2)
and if you go to deep it's a measure of people that don't understand...all that is needed is to enforce the laws we already have...
P/S...it's just a shame the Principal never had a beautiful pearl handle Derringer in her purse...just one wonderful beautiful 22 bullet could have changed it all...(in fact she could have save a few dedicated deep thinking cops that also know the truth)...just remember your real villians are film makers...writers...commercials...then come the mind altering prescribed drugs by many M.D's...then the guns.(don't know why, but I Goggled johnnycash-indiandrums three or four times today)...
they just dont get it period!!! no matter what they do to control guns, the bad guys will always get the guns period, end of story, the end, thats it!! why dont bloomberg stick to what he knows how to do best, outlawing large deadly soft drinks in new york city??? i'm sure nyc is a lot better off today with smaller soft drinks!!! hurricane sandy was nothing compared to them large soft drinks, GREAT JOB BLOOMBERG, BE PROUD!!! ADMIRAL YUR RITE BUT A TARUS JUDGE WOULD WORK BETTER DONT HAVE TO BE TO GOOD OF A SHOT??
Do you even recognize that this country was brought to its knees on September 11, 2001 by a bunch of wako American haters with BOX CUTTERS! That's right, BOX CUTTERS! They took the AA flights and rushed the cockpit with: AR's?, a BG50? Kel Tec .380? NO! BOX CUTTERS!! The ignorance of 51% of this (use to be) great country is daunting!! (evidenced by this past presidential election). 'Take from the rich, give to the poor, jump on the wagon for a ride:but God forbid you help pull it!! Oh yea, give birth control to 12 yr. olds in public schools; but you better not say 'Christmas' or ever make reference to God. I'm no rocket scientist; but does any reasonable, sane, common sensed red blooded American REALLY wonder why our great country is going down the tubes??? Wake Up! Get a job, work hard, have integrity, be honest, take care of your kids, want the things you have and quit worrying about what your neighbor has, and don't hurt anybody unless they are attempting to harm you or someone else. Everthing else kind of falls into place after that. But then again, that's just old me.....Latch......out.
My response to LaPiscator: Communism dead? I don't think so. It is alive and well right here in the USA.
The communist wanted to take over this country for over 50 years and they knew they couldn't do it via the military so they set out to do it internally. Look it up it isn't a secret. Control the media, infiltrate the higher education system, move as many people to welfare as possible, just to name a few of their many goals enroute to converting this country.
I bet I can kill way more than 30 people with my truck if I so chose to do so, right now! Wouldn't take long to find a crowd to plow through and then keep on going looking for more victims.
Murderers are going to murder regardless if they have guns or not. Too bad the principal wasn't packing heat, then only the murderer would have been killed at the school!
Hmmmm... more gun laws on the way! hmmmm... why don't we just make it illegal to shoot people, or illegal to have guns on school property? Oh wait what is this? That is already the law!!! Well then how come it happened??? I will answer that question for the democrats that don't know the answer apparently. Because criminals don't follow the law... that is the definition of criminal!!!!! Why is that so hard to understand.
Why can't people look back on history and figure out what Hitler did and what Stalin did and realize that doing that same thing over again will end the same way?
Your quote: 'especially the kind of guns designed for killing people (e.g. assault rifles with large-capacity clips)'
It only takes about 1 second to switch clips. Most military weapons are not designed to kill people. Most are designed to wound people. Your typical deer hunting rifle is a heck of a lot more deadly than military rifles that look more scary... ohhhhh!
Get hit with a 30-06 and you aren't going to make it to the hospital.
I agree with Mike that communism is alive and doing well right here in the USA , I read about a communist book from the 50's which outlines the 40 things to do to take down America without firing a shot , and if you look at their plan it is easy to see that the plan has been in action for sometime, it's close to being complete and continues to be the agenda of the Democratic/Socialist Party and their Controlled Propaganda Media ----------some of the things I remember from the book were, destroy capitalism by heavy regulations on industry , remove God from schools and goverment , promote gay rights , stop capital punishment and over flow the prison system , disarmerment of the people ---------- sure seems to me what is happening is the Commies know they can't shove it down our throats all at one time so they stick it piece by piece up our ! ----- Got to agree with the da'commrade on one thing , It is a Sad Day in America
The real problem with any gun laws is that a very small handful of people, 9 justices to be exact, decide how to interpet these laws. It will all start with a simple ban on 'assault weapons', most unassuming americans with WAY too much trust in our leaders will agree with the bans. Then, over the next couple of years cases will move on up to the Supreme Court. During this time, one or more of our conservative justices will retire or pass way, perhaps in curious fashion, and Obama will add another liberal justice to the mix. The liberal Supreme Court will then classify an assault weapon as any weapon which can hold more than 3 rounds, because of federal laws indicating this is the limit of a hunting weapon. Problem is every shotgun besides hinge breaks fall into this category, as well as most pistols. And suddenly home raids occur while we at work and we quickly become a disarmed America.
Ban all guns. That is a wonderful idea. Don't want someone being able to shoot a bunch of people. Ban them all. Banning them will work. Cocaine, crack, meth, acid, LSD and other narcotics are illegal and those are impossible to get. Oh, wait...
You are all trying to argue with people (democrats) that obviously cannot comprehend logic. Whether they were racially motivated to vote democrat or paw paw votes democrat or my Union said to vote democrat or my pastor told me to vote democrat or the Cool Celebrities said to vote democrat; they do not have minds of their own and cannot think for themselves, therefore could never reason a logical argument. Point. Period. No further discussion.
So where do you draw the line? If he would of walked in there with a shotgun should shotguns be illegal? What about a pistol? So we should disarm America because a few people have committed horrible acts with firearms?
When I was in high school I had a friend who was a foreign exchange student from Germany. In Germany guns are illegal. He told me that his school was terrorized by a gang of teenagers. I asked him why everyone didn't band together and kick their butts. He told me they had machine guns...yes teenagers with machine guns...criminals will still get guns. Only law abiding citizens will follow the law. Its easier to buy drugs than guns and drugs are illegal.
The 2nd amendment is in place so that we can take back our country by force if necessary. It has nothing to do with hunting, protection or collecting. So yes we do need assault weapons.
You claim that 30 round or high cap mags are not needed by hunters and you dont see the need for them. Well, that is spoken exactly like a democrat, just because you dont use them, then no one should have them!...Here is a logical argument for you, I hunt pigs in WMA's and as you may or may not know they have very short modern fireamrm seasons. The way the laws are presently written in LA, I can only use a rimfire or a shotgun with no larger than #6 (which the shotgun with 6 will not kill a pig). So I am left required to use a 17 or 22lr or 22mag outside of the 1 or 2 week modern firearm season. Not sure if you have ever hunted pigs but none of these rounds are highly effective for clean kills unless you have a wonderfully placed and very lucky shot. My point is 22 caliber high capacity mags out of autoloading rifles are very much needed in these situations of attempting to kill and recover a very thick skinned, most the time running, hog. Now if you tell me that you only meant high capacity mags for assualt rifles should be banned then I will logically tell you that 3 or 4 full 30 round mags from a 22lr can most certainly cause tragedy and end just as many lives.
In 2010, nearly 20 children were killed and 50 wounded in a string of copycat incidents around central China. China has strict gun control laws, so knives are the weapon of choice in violent crimes.
You talk a lot about facts, Mr. Guerin, and make appeals to history, and yet I'm not sure of which facts, if any, you are citing, and I'm even more doubtful of the 'history' to which you are referring. Sounds more like talk radio conspiracy theories to me. I doubt you learned anything about this history in school. (Oh wait, the schools are controlled by communists, right? of course.) Not everything you hear on talk radio is true, I'm sorry to say.
And as for your counterexamples, they're obviously stretched, as you well know. That an assault rifle with a large-capacity clip is more efficient at killing large groups of people than cars or deer rifles is obvious. Why aren't our servicemen and women being armed with pickup trucks and .270s? The answer, I suspect you know, is obvious. It has to do with speed and precision.
Think of our problem like this: most would agree that a grenade launcher or a bazooka should remain restricted from the public. Why? because they're capable of massive damage and have no purpose beyond creating such damage (a car, a .270, a knife, etc each have purposes besides killing people). My question is why should it remain restricted and an assault rifle be legal? I'd be interested to know how you would respond to that question.
Pipe + Gunpowder = Pipebomb. Pretty simple stuff.
Lapis - High capacity mags are needed. Not for hunting or protection or just cuz its cool. They are needed so that when/if we have to take control of our country the ones we will be fighting will have high capacity mags...not to mention every weapon available to our military. Thats the point of the 2nd Amendment.
If ever we're in such a position, some guy, then I suspect high capacity mags won't be of much help to us. The gov't still has a (near) monopoly on the kinds of weapons that trump even the fully automatic assault rifle.
LaPis - a clip' is something a woman puts in her hair. A 'magazine' is what holds ammo and belongs in a gun.
grenade launchers, assualt rifles, grenades, 270's, you name it, they all carry restrictions but they are all legal to own. Your agrument is not valid nor does it contain logic. All guns have the capability to end life equally, not just the ones with high capacity mags or 'designed to kill people'. Claiming that someone with an assualt rifle could more easily kill a crowd of unarmed people in a room than someone with a 38 special revolver is 100% speculation and your opinion, so as a free American, I would appreciate you keep it to yourself and not force it upon me!
You have a point. However using said weapons on Americans would cause more people to turn against the government and cause the international community to side with those seeking to overthrow our government. Assuming that would be needed. But I would like to touch on the fully automatic assault weapons comment. The assault weapons our military uses are not full auto. The have three round burst. And any infantryman can tell you(like me) we don't use it. We fire single well aimed shots. We call three round burst 'gay'. No offense to any homosexuals out there.
As for your not so civil claim that I vote democrat because my parents taught me to, etc--I have two points. First, I'm not a rigid partisan. I happen to vote democrat now because no one else has stepped up to the plate. I've voted republican (and independent) in the past and hope to be in a position to do so again in the near future. Second, I agree with you that one of the problems with the average American citizen today is that they haven't examined and unpacked the beliefs they inherited from their folks and culture and pastor and so forth. I like to think that I have. I don't have everything figured out, and I'm amenable to reasonable argument, something which I'm sorry to say I haven't seen a lot of here. My folks have always voted straight ticket republican and will likely continue to do so.
As for the pigs, your pointing to a problem with game laws, not guns. If it were up to me, feral hogs, being the invasive species that they are, would have an open season everywhere. They need to be eradicated.
Would having less rounds in a magazine slow down an attacker? Yes
However, unless there is someone there who can disarm or kill the gunman quicker than he can reload it doesn't matter if he has high capacity magazines. And that is the only significant difference between an assault weapon and a hunting rifle. Except the hunting rifle typically is more accurate, more powerful, and has a longer maximum effective range. Every school should have an armed security guard and restricted access. At my home I protect my son and I am armed. I am sure everyone on here feels the same. Shouldn't our children have the same protection when they are not in our care?
Also, this kid tried to buy a gun the legal way and was denied. He killed his mom and stole her guns. He obtained the guns illegally. If there was a black market for guns(which would happen look at the drug trade) people like him would still have a way to get guns. The gunman also had serious mental issues. People like him used to be institutionalized.
Thank you, Some Guy, for engaging with the substance of what I'm saying, and not just attacking me. And yes, I agree with you entirely with respect to having armed support on school campuses. Whether it's the principle, a security guard, a teacher--I don't care. It's needed. I do think, however, that in most cases, a gunman, as soon as he has to reload, would be in a position to be disarmed. Had he not the Bushmaster, we would probably be talking about a dozen or so victims rather than nearly thirty.
tubaka, you done kicked that bee hive real good this time. I can understand the statement you were trying to make. Your heart goes out to the innocent children and adults that didn't deserve to die. Stricter security might have worked? Maybe the little town thought something like this would never happen but, it did. If I'm not mistaken, the first sensless act of murder was when Cain killed Able because of jealousy. What instrument of death did Cain use? It sure wasn't an AR-15! Any instrument in your hand used to kill someone IS AN ASSAULT WEAPON!I have a great idea for gun control....Let everybody own one! Educate them on how to use it and know the laws. Watch the crime rat drop very fast! Just my opinion!
I haven't followed the story, but I thought all of this was done with 2 pistols and rifle was found in his car when it was searched.
According to NBC news 'Although he was carrying three weapons, he used only one of them in all of the school killings — a Bushmaster .223-caliber assault-style rifle similar to the one used by the snipers who terrorized the Washington, D.C., area in 2002. It was purchased legally, they said. He used one of the handguns to kill himself.'
This is from ABC report...
In addition to the casualties at the school, Lanza's mother, Nancy Lanza, was killed in her home, federal and state sources told ABC News.
According to sources, Lanza shot his mother in the face, then left his house armed with at least two semi-automatic handguns, a Glock and a Sig Sauer, and a semi-automatic rifle. He was also wearing a bulletproof vest.
Lanza drove to Sandy Hook Elementary School and continued his rampage, killing 26 people, authorities said. He was found dead at the school. It appeared that he died from what was believed to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound. The rifle was found in his car.
So I guess everyone can just pick the report you like becuase none seem to be the same...
the supreme court what a joke!!! old people appointed for life!!! anybody here is guaranteed they got a job for life, then why should they??? 9 people got the final say so on everything not right!!!
You don't know what facts I am referring to because you apparently don't know history. Both leaders I referred to disarmed their citizens and then proceeded to kill many of them. Many meaning, millions!!!
Stalin and Hitler would've perpetrated their crimes with or without the weapons of their victims. You can't just point to the two most notorious tyrants and blame their crimes exclusively on gun control. You're confusing association with causation (for those of you who keep appealing to 'logic'). As any historian would point out, there were a number of factors that led to their respective rises to power. The fates of their victims were sealed long before their weapons were taken.
And I'm not talking about illegalizing guns anyway. I'm a hunter, and as soon as the gov't tries to take my .270 or my shotgun away from me, I'll stand in rank alongside you. I'm talking about stricter regulation for assault rifles and large-capacity clips. You say these things don't work. History, as it turns out, disagrees. Consider Australia, whose success with AR restriction has been widely lauded. If you're really interested in learning, then check up on it. There's plenty of scholarship on it. A good start is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/
I suspect you're a reasonable, intelligent man, and I enjoy your posts on deer hunting. I apologize to you, and to everyone else, if I've been disrespectful. And I'm not 'trolling'; I just have had doubts lately about my (former) stance on ARs and have done a bit of research. I'm done with this thread; it's time to go hunting.
i cant believe military rifles are designed to only wound people not kill?? so we send soldiers into war with a rifle that only wounds people not kill people, so our soldiers can get killed themselves?? i mean a 22 bullet can kill you, i'm sure a 223 can kill u too!!! yes of course a larger caliber will do more damage quicker and harder, but just to wound???
Dude, you have got to be kidding me! Quoting the Washington Post? A paper written in the most anti-second amendment city in the country! What your research has failed to identify is the rise of violent crime in Australia!!!! There arent as many murders or suicides because the nuts and the lazy can take whatever they want, the law abiding citizens have nothing left with which to protect themselves!The article even state that the findings of 'Lower Homicide Rates' were not statistically signifigant! In other words, not valid!
its just common sense and logic which our government does not have absolutly!!! take the guns away from the honest law abiding people and the crimminals just love it!!! like we use to say when playing marbles back in the day, razoo!!!!
If guns kill all of these children in schools , malls , and movie theaters ... How about abortion ? How many lives does that claim each day ? Why don't we ban abortion clinics and the ones who perform these procedures ?
You and I seem to think alike, shame we're in the minority now!!!!
we mite be in the minority, but that doesnt make us wrong bra!!
i am not for abortion and i am not against abortion in certain circumstances??? i do believe a woman has her rights???? this problem will never be solved, just like gun control!!! dont u think this idiot that shot 20 lil innocent beautiful children and 6 other people, should have been aborted before birth, no, WHY NOT????
I don't care what they do either way about abortion , but they do take thousands of lives each day . Those kids would be born and live a life . All I'm saying is abortion takes way more lives each year than guns in America does . If they want to ban guns for killing kids , why not abortion ??
quote: 'You're confusing association with causation'
No I am not that is what gun control groups are doing. I never said or implied that Hitler and Stalin murdered millions of innocent people because those people were disarmed. Never said that.
The point is what they did (leader disarming their subjects) and what they did next (murder them). Not saying they were murdered because they were disarmed, I am saying they were disarmed so they could be murdered without much fear of any uprising because of it.
This sequence of events is not restricted to those to evil leaders either. They are just the most well known.
Funny thing is the communist in this country are doing exactly what you accused me of doing. They want to take away guns because they think guns cause crime when the truth of the matter is the more common the gun the harder it is on criminals. They think guns are cause of evil doing.
Fact is I can get in my truck right now and take out a lot more than 27 people before I get forcibly stopped. I know how to poison people. I know how to blow things up. I am always amazed that these idiots never seem to do even half as much damage as they could without the use of any guns at all... or with them... either way.
Bottom line is their were less restrictive gun laws 40 years ago and we didn't have this problem. What changed? Smart people will already know the answer to that question. Less and less people believe in God. Take God out of schools. There is your cause and effect.
this country was founded on GOD!!! now u cant even say that word without being sued by some organization!! aint it ashamed the word GOD aint politically correct anymore??? oops my fault, may GOD help us???
In response to my comment about guns designed to wound. If you shoot an enemy and kill him you have taken out 1 enemy. If you wound him, it takes others to carry him away. You have taken out 3.
223 is a light gun with little recoil and the ammo is cheaper than larger caliber guns.
Restricting guns is directly infringing my rights. I feel like if you don't think assault rifles or high capacity magazines are needed then don't own/use them, but don't take that right away from others. If I were to see a guy on the street burning an American flag cursing America. Although I do not agree with it it, individual expression the beauty of America. That man has every right to speak his opinion freely. No one has the right to take that freedom away as much as disagree with what he is saying. I have the freedom to own my guns and high capacity magazines it is my right and no one has the right to take them away as much as they dont like them. the fact that people are using this tragedy to push an agenda is pretty sick.
I would give mine up also but, the convicted felons would still have his guns and then I would not. The law states that a convicted felon cannot legally possess a weapon, but they continue to commit crimes using guns. It’s against the law to have a machine gun but people still have them. The people are the problem, not the guns. If we still hung murders it would give these people something contemplate prior to their action and make them realize that if I do this, this is what the law will do to me. People need to pay for their crimes. The Bible says “an eye for an eye”. I believe in a life for a life, hang them from a tree for all to see. When they take my guns do you think government will protect me?
you are correct with the theory of why the 223 was adopted by our military over more devasting rounds. Wounding someone would take multiple threats out. The problem is our enemies are not as humane us. They do not get out the fight to help their wounded.
Back to the original debate though....the most logical argument of why gun control will not work, which we repeat over and over is that you will only be restricting the law abiding citizen. Criminals will get whatever they want. Also, there are already too many assualt weapons and high capacity mags in the publics hands to regulate. So unless your talking about government officials coming into our homes and seizing our property, then there is no argument against this. Its plain and simple fact.
Oh also, you may want to recheck your so-called facts on the crime rate in Australia after they banned most guns. The Washington Post is not a creditable source for this debate anyway. Stop drinking the liberal media Kool-Aid.
The reality is no new gun control laws are likely at the federal level for at least two years. Republicans in the house will not bring such legislation to a vote. Longer term this will just be another issue for democrats to posture over and divide the country with in 2014 & 2016. At a more basic level Obama and the blue state dems are using some saber rattling about gun control for cover on their left as they find a compromise on the 'fiscal cliff'. In order to keep spending money our nation will NEVER have they are going to split the difference on raising taxes on high income earners which will anger the democratic base so they will distract their base with gun control promise they have no intention of delivering on. At a more basic level it is important to realize that there were already many laws in place to attempt to prevent this tragedy, some of them worked in this case (he could not purchase guns) but in the end he circumvented them. As far as magazine capacity he obviously swapped magazines multiple time so what would a few more swaps have mattered? It was a rare perfect storm where a spree killer had a high level of firearms proficiency allowing him to be especially lethal. It is likely that many people on this site can keep a pump shotgun stoked with ammo sufficiently rapidly to maintain a 20 round per minute or greater rate of fire so where is the line drawn on what guns are 'too lethal'? I agree that the decline in religion in this country has a role, not because I think gods grace would protect us ( that's a discussion for another day) but because indoctrination with the 10 commandments from an early age results in some internal hardwiring in children inhibiting the willingness to take human life and at its best religious education emphasizes viewing ones action from a reciprocal point of view. These early and repeated lessons prohibiting homicide are especially important in the mentally infirm but I think most children today are not taught these things as rote any longer, people just assume , wrongly that ' my children would never kill anyone'. In the long view the gun control debate is just another log on the fire roasting our country as those on the east and west coast become more entrenched I their view that the a few more laws and a little more government is always the answer while those in the center of the nation ( geographically) become more disgusted with a government that seemingly can't canabilize them fast enough, exporting there jobs and invalidating their value system (ie. 'clinging to god, guns and religion'). To say that gun control will solve the problem of violence in our country when we have such an immense and thriving contraband market despite the 50 year war on drugs and despite the knowledge that the greatest mass murders in our nation history used box cutters and fertilizer is a joke. Politicians are using this and other social issues to distract us from the fact that they have tripple morgaged our future to stay in office and the American public eats it up and asks for more.
i dont really want to get on a tangent because the OP really is something else and deserves attention in his own right lol... but i felt like clarification was needed. the 223 wasnt selected over 7.62 or anything else for that matter because it 'wounded' the enemy , thus creating a need for their buddies to come help them and present a secondary shot. It was precominantly a monetary issue... cheaper to make 5.56 than 7.62. But also, it had reduced recoil and less weight when carrying your basic load which allows the soldier to last longer before creating fatigue and allows the soldier to fire secondary shots faster with the lighter recoil. If anything, you would want the opposite of a wounding round.... dead guys dont shoot back... wounded ones DEINATELY do. In fact, the effectivenss of the standard military ball 5.56 ammo was questioned during OIF when many enemy targets were being wounded and taking multiple hits to eliminate. In reponse to this the army fielded a small lot of ammo in a heavier grain. The results were notable and the ammo was fielded to Squad Designated Marksman (shooters who were trained higher than a basic infantryman but not been to sniper school) and they saw better accuracy as well... in the end it came to money... still cheaper to make basic ball ammo. Now, im definately not saying the wound them to get their friends out has not been used... it was a sniper tactic that ive seen used several times, but the average soldier wants to shoot, and kill whatever target he draws on because odds are that target has already shot at him..... hope that helps.
Vermont, Bonne chance just such a thing happened 236 years ago! Otherwise we would have some of the strictest gun control in the world and would have needed someone else to bail our asses out of a couple of World Wars!
I know you consider what I alluded to as apple to oranges, and I guess I respect your opinion. It is true that a coordinated overthrow of the government is unlikely, as it was then. However, the truth is that we are being lied to by a government too large to fail, but destined to do so. In the event of a United States Government failure, I sure want my arms to protect my family and their liberties. That there is a bushel basket full of aplles if you ask me!
Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell (John Adams, 1817).
...lets back-up a few comments...wounding could be better than killing...it drains their personell and resources leaves less on their front line...(they too don't like to leave a man behind)...therefore the medics get shot...as far as the dead they just get rolled over...had a Major from the Battle of the Bulge tell me that when I was about 10 years old...
P/S...Taxi,'ya got to be shooting a Ruger 10/22,Marlin Model 60 or the Henry ???...hate to stick my neck out,but which one ??? cheers
@vermont you need to get a clue. Yes it is highly unlikely that we will ever need to overthrow our government. However, that was the intention of our forefathers when they included the 2nd amendment.
'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.'
What does a militia do smart guy? Does it hunt? Does it protect private citizens from criminals? Does it collect guns for fun? NO! We were part of Great Britain. Our MILITIAS fought for our freedom. That is why we have the 2nd amendment. So that we can form militias to fight for our freedom(if necessary).
The rest of the world does not have a monopoly on tyrants and dictators. We have power hungry individuals(and groups) here to. Our ability to fight for our rights(with guns if necessary) is what keeps them in check. How many countries governments were overthrown this year? It wasn't just in the middle east. Iceland overthrew its government and banking system. All the banking CEO's and government officials are facing criminal charges. They didn't bail out the banks like we did. You don't hear about it on the news because we don't actually have any legitimate news sources. Its all either liberal or conservative propaganda. Why would political groups want to censor our media? What are they afraid of? Our country grows more and more corrupt every year and we just sit around watching Jersey Shore and Americas Next Whatever like everything is just fine and dandy. Or we point fingers at one side or the other while being blinded to the fact that they are both screwing us.