Wouldn't it be hilarious...

[chucky2]

With regard to magazine capacity, the statutory language I feel would be adequate would be a blank page.

That's too simple for politicians, accountants, and lawyers. It would then be argued by some fine individual at the ACLU that a blank page in fact should be interpreted as 0 round capacity, prove him wrong. Backed by every whining politician who needs a boost from his/her loony base.

Something along the lines of what Darwin333 is sufficient, and would be needed.

Chuck

 

[irishScott]

Where in Ireland are you buying this stuff legally?!

I'm American. Irish heritage.

 

[HAL9000]

I'm American. Irish heritage.

Oh okay cool. Which parent?

 

[Craig234]

Statutory draft of language for new bill in response to AZ shooting:

It is illegal to use a firearm to unlawfully kill someone.


The end.

Whatcha think?

So, let's make nuclear weapons legal, but illegal to use for killing people.

 

[Scotteq]

So, let's make nuclear weapons legal, but illegal to use for killing people.

If you think Nuclear weapons are legal, try buying one.

 

[Murloc]

they aren't legal.
Why?
it's the individual who is responsible for using them to kill people, not the inanimate object.

I think anyone would agree that it's better to ban nuclear weapons (you can't buy one and keep it in your house), but this invalidates the argument for anything that can be used to kill and gives a sense to the banning of weapons that aren't necessary for sport or collection

 

[airdata]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

 

[Nebor]

Where in Ireland are you buying this stuff legally?!

You can buy, use and even carry guns in Ireland. As far as I know, one of the only parts of the UK that actually issues concealed carry permits.

 

[Craig234]

If you think Nuclear weapons are legal, try buying one.

What part of 'let's make them legal' do you not understand is not saying they are, as you dodge the point?

 

[HAL9000]

You can buy, use and even carry guns in Ireland. As far as I know, one of the only parts of the UK that actually issues concealed carry permits.

You're thinking of Northern Ireland.

 

[Nebor]

You're thinking of Northern Ireland.

We don't cotton to foreigners and their "geography" much 'round these parts.

 

[irishScott]

Oh okay cool. Which parent?

Dad's side. Great grandparents came over via Ellis, and the immediate family line basically married other Irish immigrants up until my Dad married my mom.

 

[HAL9000]

We don't cotton to foreigners and their "geography" much 'round these parts.

Yeah sounds about right.

Dad's side. Great grandparents came over via Ellis, and the immediate family line basically married other Irish immigrants up until my Dad married my mom.

k.

 

[Darwin333]

So, let's make nuclear weapons legal, but illegal to use for killing people.

That is truly one of the most idiotic replies I have seen around here in a long time. I must tip my hat to you because, at least around here, that is a very difficult achievement.

If a gun is comparable to a friggen nuclear warhead then a toothpick is the same thing as a fully automatic machine gun.

 

[Darwin333]

they aren't legal.
Why?
it's the individual who is responsible for using them to kill people, not the inanimate object.

I think anyone would agree that it's better to ban nuclear weapons (you can't buy one and keep it in your house), but this invalidates the argument for anything that can be used to kill and gives a sense to the banning of weapons that aren't necessary for sport or collection

We aren't allowed to have a pet lion roaming freely in our suburbian backyard therefore all cats can be banned, right? Cats damn sure aren't necessary and aren't constitutionally protected last time I checked.

 

[HAL9000]

We aren't allowed to have a pet lion roaming freely in our suburbian backyard therefore all cats can be banned, right? Cats damn sure aren't necessary and aren't constitutionally protected last time I checked.

I'm also not aloud to own C4, I keep explaining to the police it's fine unless I blow it up, and I promised I wouldn't... So what's the big deal?!

 

[Darwin333]

What part of 'let's make them legal' do you not understand is not saying they are, as you dodge the point?

The point of trying to compare nuclear weapons to small arms, more specifically handguns, is quite clear. Its like comparing a tabby to a wild lion because they are very remotely related, in other words it is idiotic.

You must have something better than that Craig, I simply can't believe that is the best you can do.

 

[glenn1]

Anyone who thinks that banning high capacity magazines will make a difference probably doesn't know dick about firearms. Do you think that switching magazines is some incredibly difficult task like changing out the engine in a car? It takes a couple seconds at most - hit the magazine release button, insert the new magazine, hit the slide lock release if the previous magazine was empty. There, you're done and can proceed with shooting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjlUY6gyuwA

 

[irishScott]

The point of trying to compare nuclear weapons to small arms, more specifically handguns, is quite clear. Its like comparing a tabby to a wild lion because they are very remotely related, in other words it is idiotic.

You must have something better than that Craig, I simply can't believe that is the best you can do.

He has better, it just probably doesn't make sense. At least his other argument is sound in the most literal grammatical sense. (although common sense, as you pointed out, would beg to differ...)

 

[sportage]

My solution is to make ownership linked to taking and passing required gun school.
You cannot get a driver license without passing a test, and at some
point have passed drivers ED. Requiring passing a class in gun school would educate the owners in responsibe gun ownership. Educate the owner with how to handle a gun, both usage and storage.
If everyone at my local Wal-Mart is going to pack a gun, I would at least know they can
shoot straight, and operate the safety feature.

Gun class would include graphically showing would-be owners the physical damage a gun
wound does to a body, the head, the chest, and so on. Show what someone looks like
with their head blown off, or gunshot holes in the body, or like the congresswoman in the ICU unit with tubes coming out of every part of their body and half their skull removed after brain surgery.
So when someone with a gun feels John Wayne-ish, they would realize the difference between actually shooting someone and the fantasy of watching someone getting shot on TV.

We have laws and requirements for getting a drivers license, why not guns?
If you cannot pass gun class, as with failing the driver’s test, you get no license.
You only get a gun if you pass and demonstrate you can handle a gun.
If you cannot shoot straight and cannot prove you can handle a gun, then no gun.

Last week, one congress person said they wish at least one other person with a gun were at the grocery store shooting in AZ. But what he actually said makes a lot of sense. He actually said, "a responsible person with a gun". He was saying someone
that knew how to actually use a gun, i.e. security or police.
I have no trouble with his statement. He was not saying he wished "anyone else" with a gun, he was saying someone "responsible" with a gun.

The shooter might have been stopped sooner, if someone that was a responsible gun owner had been present. Not just anyone, but someone that actually might have been able to stop the shooter and not accidently kill more people in the crowd.

Allow all and every type of gun ownership. BUT... only if the owner has taken part in and passed a gun ownership class, proving they can be responsible.
Just like the drivers license...!

 

[shira]

Anyone who thinks that banning high capacity magazines will make a difference probably doesn't know dick about firearms. Do you think that switching magazines is some incredibly difficult task like changing out the engine in a car? It takes a couple seconds at most - hit the magazine release button, insert the new magazine, hit the slide lock release if the previous magazine was empty. There, you're done and can proceed with shooting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjlUY6gyuwA

Then you'll be interested to know that Loughner was tackled when he ran out of bullets in his first magazine and was trying to change magazines. If he'd had only a 10-bullet magazine, he'd have been tackled sooner and fewer people would have been killed or injured. Fact.

Most psychotics are NOT well trained handgun users, capable of switching out a magazine in seconds. Limiting the number of bullets in a magazine CAN and WILL make a difference in the real world, not in the straw-man world of the "everyone's an expert with handguns" NRA.

And, yes, it's a tradeoff between the benefits of total freedom to use any handgun with any enhancement you want and and the benefit of limiting the lethality of handguns in the hands of madmen. In the warped minds of the NRA, there are no benefits to controlling handguns. None.

 

[Brigandier]

Then you'll be interested to know that Loughner was tackled when he ran out of bullets in his first magazine and was trying to change magazines. If he'd had only a 10-bullet magazine, he'd have been tackled sooner and fewer people would have been killed or injured. Fact.

Most psychotics are NOT well trained handgun users, capable of switching out a magazine in seconds. Limiting the number of bullets in a magazine CAN and WILL make a difference in the real world, not in the straw-man world of the "everyone's an expert with handguns" NRA.

And, yes, it's a tradeoff between the benefits of total freedom to use any handgun with any enhancement you want and and the benefit of limiting the lethality of handguns in the hands of madmen. In the warped minds of the NRA, there are no benefits to controlling handguns. None.

What do you say to the person above that said people should be required to take classes?

 

[shortylickens]

Even if there is a new ban on them it will be on production, there will still be plenty around, but the prices will go up, just like last time. It's ok though, they'll be able to pat themselves on the back for some feel good legislation, and then wonder why nothing changed.

Which is funny cuz 1994-2004 should have shown them that simply banning guns or magazines or accessories doesnt do a damn thing. I suspect the congressmen know this, which is why they have no issue with gun legislation. It makes them look good to the liberals, and when the conservatives complain they can honestly tell them "it wont matter anyway, just let the bill run out and everything will be back to normal".

 

[charrison]

The new law would specify a maximum legal magazine size, probably 10 or 15. Even members of the U.S. Congress aren't stupid enough to write a law outlawing only 30-bullet magazines.

Dont be so sure. Congress is run by idiots. The recently raised the taxes on little cigar(never sure how they were different than a regular cigarette). The manufactures made the paper heavier, filters a bit longer and added a little tobacco. They once again have escaped the tax on their product.

 

[feralkid]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Wrong. People kill people.


























Often with guns. But otherwise with whatever else is handy.