General Discussion

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)

8. thank you

Reply to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:10 AM

Jan 2013

CT already has one of the toughest laws on the books and it still happened. everything was legal. For all we know the weapons were safely secured in a gun safe and the son broke into it or learned the combination. I would like a biometric lock to prevent this. What kind of drugs was he on or not on? Most people that own guns that I know have no problems for background checks and the closing of the wrongly named gun show loophole. Banning high capacity mags, fine. My AR was designed for 20 rounders and I do not like the long magazines anyway. The reason I like the AR platform is I can just change the upper receiver and have another weapon. 10 round magazines, pain when I am target shooting but I have some 20 round magazines on back order now. Do not think that would help. Waiting period OK. limit number of purchases per month OK, but all of this still would not have prevented these from happening. Health care would have been the best possible prevention that would have helped.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

142 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why is it that the main objection concerning gun control [View all] Whovian Jan 2013 OP

it's all part of deligitimating gun control BainsBane Jan 2013 #1

We're trying to point out two things Recursion Jan 2013 #18

two more points... farminator3000 Jan 2013 #35

Good points both Recursion Jan 2013 #45

some of the pending bills do specify number of rounds, generally ten BainsBane Jan 2013 #51

Magazines are a different matter, and I'm all for a high-cap ban Recursion Jan 2013 #56

we don't like guns that spit out a 100 rounds in a few seconds BainsBane Jan 2013 #49

Me neither. Those have been essentially banned for close to 80 years Recursion Jan 2013 #52

the Aurora shooter used one BainsBane Jan 2013 #58

The "if it were up to you plan" would actually do something; I would support it if the party does Recursion Jan 2013 #60

no, it doesn't BainsBane Jan 2013 #62

Doesn't it simply ban the AR platform by name? Recursion Jan 2013 #63

don't you think you should read the legislation BainsBane Jan 2013 #65

I have read her website. That's why I mentioned the "by name" problem. Recursion Jan 2013 #68

that summary is cursory to say the least BainsBane Jan 2013 #70

It's a one-test ban with most of the features from the 94 ban listed... Recursion Jan 2013 #71

don't you think they have the ATF helping them with that legislation? BainsBane Jan 2013 #73

It would surprise me if the ATF were helping Recursion Jan 2013 #74

I did't say that BainsBane Jan 2013 #75

I have written my (non-voting) Congresswoman Recursion Jan 2013 #76

Who defines what has a chance politically? Marr Jan 2013 #121

Handguns are the vast majority of murder weapons Recursion Jan 2013 #122

Exactly, voters. Marr Jan 2013 #124

I am perfectly okay with the 2nd Amendment's right to keep & bear arms Sherman A1 Jan 2013 #2

So if I want to follow the 1st admendment, can I only do it with technology from the 1700's Travis_0004 Jan 2013 #12

Do you know when movable type & the printing press were invented? baldguy Jan 2013 #14

The army was founded in 1775. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2013 #140

This message was self-deleted by its author Sherman A1 Jan 2013 #19

No, not quite. It was the 1980s when NRA friendly judges nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #55

Not so. The individual RKBA is acknowledged (even by controllers) as Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #78

Recently, tribe "came around." nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #88

Can I keep my Winchester .03 .22, made in 1905? Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #90

That is not an assault weapon nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #91

Why isn't it? While enshrining my "classic," could I keep a Remington M8 (1906)? Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #94

Lets start with detachable magazines. nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #110

So the Model 8 & 81 are to be outlawed or not? Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #113

I see what you doing nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #116

So, just another "NRA tactic," eh? Try a specific argument, then 'poof?' Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #118

ask the VP of tbe US nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #125

Actually, I support the universal NICS and strengthening reporting requirements. Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #137

So you are arguing just to argue? nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #138

Check the mirror... Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #139

Now it's an "assault gun?" Pray tell, what is that? Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #115

This sarisataka Jan 2013 #130

LOL! Thanks for light moment. Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #136

Earliest SCOTUS case I know which treats RKBA as an individual right is from 1857. dairydog91 Jan 2013 #82

And we both know how right Justice Tanney was nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #89

Exactly-- and if you're willing to ignore the "militia" part, why should anyone else accept Marr Jan 2013 #123

But you're not advocating constructionism, you're advocating turbo-originalism. dairydog91 Jan 2013 #25

Misreading. 2A says "arms," not muskets. 1A says "press." Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #77

This message was self-deleted by its author Sherman A1 Jan 2013 #79

Your answers... Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #93

This message was self-deleted by its author Sherman A1 Jan 2013 #105

Glad to be of assistance! Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #114

In a correlation to Cigarettes rightsideout Jan 2013 #3

How about putting Surgeon Generals warnings on firearms too ... OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #15

How about making gun free zones around and in all public buildings like smoke free zones? appleannie1 Jan 2013 #28

We pretty much have as far as I know (nt) Recursion Jan 2013 #29

For frack face the warning on my ammo box nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #67

The last chef knife I bought said "Blade is sharp; avoid contact" on the package Recursion Jan 2013 #72

I have a Ruger .22 handgun Jenoch Jan 2013 #80

That is merely the NRA/RW talking point used to end discussions on a message board Kolesar Jan 2013 #4

The primary objection is that some people don't want OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #5

see 4. Kolesar Jan 2013 #6

I'm sorry, but statistics and real world occurrences are not "talking points". OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #13

Good old games with statistics! bongbong Jan 2013 #39

So MJ is another NRA "talking point" promoter? Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #81

LOL bongbong Jan 2013 #83

"Games with statistics"? LOL, it's a numerical count of gun crime. OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #99

numbuz bongbong Jan 2013 #101

LOL wut? Gun deaths from semi-automatic mass shootings should somehow count more than OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #102

Your stats are flawed bongbong Jan 2013 #104

They're not my stats, they are the FBI's. OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #107

Those numbers don't support your argument bongbong Jan 2013 #108

There are no raw numbers of assault weapon crime, just rifle crime. OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #111

thank you Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #8

unsupportable comment Kolesar Jan 2013 #10

I also have bolt action rifles Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #20

"a) Assault weapons actually make up VERY little crime"=NRA-deflection Kolesar Jan 2013 #43

Why is it a deflection to point that out? Recursion Jan 2013 #48

Stop with facts we are talking guns! former-republican Jan 2013 #54

Sounds like a repeal of the 2nd Amendment and a complete ban on all guns is what we need. LonePirate Jan 2013 #22

Well, here's a petition for that Recursion Jan 2013 #27

LOL bongbong Jan 2013 #37

So, tell me? How much? Recursion Jan 2013 #47

The Talking Point bongbong Jan 2013 #57

So, tell me, what do you think the compliance rate would be? Recursion Jan 2013 #59

Once we start tacking on 5-20 year prison terms for gun possession, ownership rates will drop. LonePirate Jan 2013 #41

Do you think fewer people do meth now than would if it were legal? Recursion Jan 2013 #46

Twenty some kids might disagree with you. RC Jan 2013 #92

I'm sure alot more than just 20 kids disagree with me. OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #96

Maybe I should have said dead first graders. RC Jan 2013 #97

So what's worse, "NRA Talking Points" or "Logical Fallacies" (ie: emotional appeal) OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #100

Sorry but being an idiot doesn't prevent you from getting a gun. dkf Jan 2013 #7

you're the expert! bettyellen Jan 2013 #117

We all do. But unless laws are passed that would actually accomplish that goal, jmg257 Jan 2013 #9

Expect the gunboarders to act like you never posted that comprehensive summary...eom Kolesar Jan 2013 #11

ok Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #21

More detail... jmg257 Jan 2013 #24

Because our last major Federal gun control law was completely pointless, because of definitions Recursion Jan 2013 #16

the tone of this OP really makes me want to answer backwoodsbob Jan 2013 #17

Pro-Gun Activists Are Attempting To Control The Vocabulary..... Paladin Jan 2013 #23

Everyone on every side of every debate does the same thing slackmaster Jan 2013 #61

Widely Used Debate Technique, No Doubt. (nt) Paladin Jan 2013 #84

The answer is that statutes must be reasonably related to their goals to be Constitutional. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #26

THAT's the one you pick?? Clips vs mags??? jmg257 Jan 2013 #32

The word "clip" doesn't appear in that definition .... oldhippie Jan 2013 #44

It certainly didn't fail to do what they wanted it to do...ban hi capacity mags. jmg257 Jan 2013 #53

It was amended by the BATFE to exclude tubular magazines oneshooter Jan 2013 #103

In my neck of PA people sell guns at yard sales. It amazes me how easy it is in appleannie1 Jan 2013 #30

There should be a multifaceted solution to the problem of mass shootings. Thinkingabout Jan 2013 #31

Alaskan State Troopers: disturbing scene koiwoman53 Jan 2013 #33

Police and prosecutors have discretion. dairydog91 Jan 2013 #87

AK gun laws Publiuus Jan 2013 #135

I posted on this subject last year bongbong Jan 2013 #34

My objection is the potential for "control" leading to the unjust taking of property slackmaster Jan 2013 #36

It is a deliberate strategy to discredit MineralMan Jan 2013 #38

It's called "baffle them with bullshit" gollygee Jan 2013 #40

Because precise language is critical for effective laws hack89 Jan 2013 #42

And I Repeat What I Said, Up-Thread: Paladin Jan 2013 #66

ok. nt hack89 Jan 2013 #95

Nice To Find Agreement With You. Honestly. (nt) Paladin Jan 2013 #98

Not agreement. Weariness is more accurate. hack89 Jan 2013 #112

My Mistake. (nt) Paladin Jan 2013 #119

No big deal. nt hack89 Jan 2013 #120

It's a distraction tactic nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #50

The tricky part is drawing the line kudzu22 Jan 2013 #64

Theology is out of place at revival meetings. nt rrneck Jan 2013 #69

It's what Gungeoneeers do best Hugabear Jan 2013 #85

I should probably skip this sarisataka Jan 2013 #86

If you can't define what you are legislating... Coyote_Tan Jan 2013 #106

Perhaps because you can't ban something you cannot define? Duh. cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #109

I think it is important to distinguish a couple of things here. CTyankee Jan 2013 #133

I want to be able to go where I want in this town without the chance of being caught between patrice Jan 2013 #126

It comes down to one thing for me: AndyA Jan 2013 #127

Most of the gunner memes are distractions. upaloopa Jan 2013 #128

it's a common internet board trick to insert minutia instead of the big picture graham4anything Jan 2013 #129

Because without precise terminology Jenoch Jan 2013 #131

K&R nt Fresh_Start Jan 2013 #132

The Constutional Issue Publiuus Jan 2013 #134

There is no reason to believe draconian regulations on guns will decrease the levels of violence Taitertots Jan 2013 #141

Human nature loose wheel Jan 2013 #142