Backwards Thinking!

[tpntch]

 

[5.56'aholic]

or its a high powered rifle when the police use it

 

[tpntch]

or its a high powered rifle when the police use it

We need to be part of the bodies that makes these decisions.

 

[thatgtrguy]

I disagree with the cartoon. I think the gun control debate asks a more nuanced question:

In a day and age where big gov't is generally accepted, standing armies are the norm, local law enforcement is generally available, where elections as well as gov't checks and balances have been demonstrated to keep gov't tyranny at bay; is there a reasonable case to be made that weapons designed and perfected for battlefield and urban combat roles should be the same weapons in people's homes.

Is personal defense, in and of itself, reason enough to be able to kill people 30 at a time?

I don't believe anyone on the anti-gun side of the argument gives a rip about what the rifle is called. I think we on the pro-gun side make a lot of hay about vocabulary because it's an easy (and cheap) way to score a few points in the argument. But it has nothing to do with the debate itself.

 

[RockofStrength]

I disagree with the cartoon. I think the gun control debate asks a more nuanced question:

In a day and age where big gov't is generally accepted, standing armies are the norm, local law enforcement is generally available, where elections as well as gov't checks and balances have been demonstrated to keep gov't tyranny at bay; is there a reasonable case to be made that weapons designed and perfected for battlefield and urban combat roles should be the same weapons in people's homes.

Is personal defense, in and of itself, reason enough to be able to kill people 30 at a time?

I don't believe anyone on the anti-gun side of the argument gives a rip about what the rifle is called. I think we on the pro-gun side make a lot of hay about vocabulary because it's an easy (and cheap) way to score a few points in the argument. But it has nothing to do with the debate itself.

But that's simply nonsense. It will typically take several rounds to kill a person, and even then with prompt proper medical attention a person can survive a truly staggering amount of punishment. Add that in with the need to be able to deal with potential multiple assailant situations and 30 rounds is hardly enough.

 

[MikeDVB]

Is personal defense, in and of itself, reason enough to be able to kill people 30 at a time?

If a single shot always resulted in stopping the threat and you never ever missed while under stress I may agree with you.

Unfortunately we live in the real world where things are not so ideal.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I disagree with the cartoon. I think the gun control debate asks a more nuanced question:

In a day and age where big gov't is generally accepted, standing armies are the norm, local law enforcement is generally available, where elections as well as gov't checks and balances have been demonstrated to keep gov't tyranny at bay; is there a reasonable case to be made that weapons designed and perfected for battlefield and urban combat roles should be the same weapons in people's homes.

Is personal defense, in and of itself, reason enough to be able to kill people 30 at a time?

I don't believe anyone on the anti-gun side of the argument gives a rip about what the rifle is called. I think we on the pro-gun side make a lot of hay about vocabulary because it's an easy (and cheap) way to score a few points in the argument. But it has nothing to do with the debate itself.

Please tell us that you are joking. The purposes for the Second Amendment, as with all issues of principle, do not change regardless of prevailing circumstances. If you think that the checks and balances are in fact working when they have been short-circuited and have been becoming increasingly ineffective since Franklin Roosevelt managed to nullify them by packing the Supreme Court, you have not been paying attention. Just because something is accepted by enough people and/or the right-thinking people are denied access to candidates who would honor the Constitution, that does not make unconstitutional and inherently wrong behavior acceptable. Do us a favor and review the differences between a republic and a democracy. I will give you a hint: One is limited government by rule of law and the other is WTF ever 51% of voters say it is at any given moment.

 

[USA#1]

+1!

 

[88GT]

I disagree with the cartoon. I think the gun control debate asks a more nuanced question:

In a day and age where big gov't is generally accepted, standing armies are the norm, local law enforcement is generally available, where elections as well as gov't checks and balances have been demonstrated to keep gov't tyranny at bay; is there a reasonable case to be made that weapons designed and perfected for battlefield and urban combat roles should be the same weapons in people's homes.

Is personal defense, in and of itself, reason enough to be able to kill people 30 at a time?

I don't believe anyone on the anti-gun side of the argument gives a rip about what the rifle is called. I think we on the pro-gun side make a lot of hay about vocabulary because it's an easy (and cheap) way to score a few points in the argument. But it has nothing to do with the debate itself.

What country is this?

And a to the rest of it too.

 

[Liberty1911]

What country is this?

And a to the rest of it too.

Yeah, I have to agree. That's a fantasy land.

 

[dragun762]

The reason we need assault weapons is to keep our freedom when big brother crosses the line. government does not like it when the civilians are as armed as they are. we have given up so much in the name of "saftey" just think homeland security a sactioned black opps orginazation that doesnt have to care about your puny rights. stand up or move to the communist state of california.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think the gun control debate asks a more nuanced question:

I managed to overlook the significance of this introduction earlier. 'Shall not be infringed' is a remarkably plain statement. It does not leave any room for nuance.

 

[TopDog]

It is not a matter of need.

The Constitution spells out our RIGHT. Big shock boys and girls, I don't even own a evil black rifle. I'm not fighting to even keep something I have. I am fighting to preserve my RIGHT period. I don't have to argue a need, explain a reason. And yes the High Highness Court of the land got it wrong, shall not be infringed actually means shall not be infringed. Not can be infringed to the degree that we in power say is reasonable infringement.

Edit: Apologizes to IndyDave1776, he got in before my rant.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It is not a matter of need.

The Constitution spells out our RIGHT. Big shock boys and girls, I don't even own a evil black rifle. I'm not fighting to even keep something I have. I am fighting to preserve my RIGHT period. I don't have to argue a need, explain a reason. And yes the High Highness Court of the land got it wrong, shall not be infringed actually means shall not be infringed. Not can be infringed to the degree that we in power say is reasonable infringement.

Edit: Apologizes to IndyDave1776, he got in before my rant.

Great post! The choir is never too big!

 

[JetGirl]

I don't even own a evil black rifle. I'm not fighting to even keep something I have. I am fighting to preserve my RIGHT period.

Ditto to all that ^.


Evil-Black-Rifle-Non-Owner's-For-RIGHTS ...Unite!
Or something like that.

 

[dsol]

But that's simply nonsense. It will typically take several rounds to kill a person, and even then with prompt proper medical attention a person can survive a truly staggering amount of punishment. Add that in with the need to be able to deal with potential multiple assailant situations and 30 rounds is hardly enough.

This is very true. Read about the Rangers who participated in Somalia during the Blackhawk Down situation. Those guys were shot all to hell fighting against overwelming odds and lost a remarkably few number of men all things considered.

 

[Stschil]

I disagree with the cartoon. I think the gun control debate asks a more nuanced question:

In a day and age where big gov't is generally accepted, (By those who eschew the acceptance of personal reaponsibility)standing armies are the norm, local law enforcement is generally available,Please explain that to the families of victims of violent crime in Gun Free Zones and Cities, I'm sure they will feel all Unicorns and Rainbow happy where elections as well as gov't checks and balances have been demonstrated to keep gov't tyranny at bay; This would be hilarious if it weren't for the fact that you believe this tripe is there a reasonable case to be made that weapons designed and perfected for battlefield and urban combat roles should be the same weapons in people's homes.

Is personal defense, in and of itself, reason enough to be able to kill people 30 at a time? There you go with your BS "Needs Based" views again. No body "NEEDS" anything except a dwelling and sustenance. Shall we come to your place and relieve you of everything you don't NEED?

I don't believe anyone on the anti-gun side of the argument gives a rip about what the rifle is called.The fact that the Left's definitions keep changing, clouding minds and causing confusion, pretty much proove that the care very much what it is called. They use this to create fear in order to further their goals I think we on the pro-gun side make a lot of hay about vocabulary because it's an easy (and cheap) way to score a few points in the argument. But it has nothing to do with the debate itself.

Using the Govt's difference of designations to point out the hypocrisy of the Gun Grabber's claims is not "scoring easy points" to satisfy a feeling of superiority, its done in an attempt to prove to the fence sitters and drones that they are being led by those who are willing to lie, cheat, and twist truth in order to FORCE their views on others.

Your views are disturbing, Sir. Whether you are here in search of answers or just to stir up , I haven't quite figured you out, yet.

 

[SecondhandSnake]

I disagree with the cartoon. I think the gun control debate asks a more nuanced question:

In a day and age where big gov't is generally accepted, standing armies are the norm, local law enforcement is generally available, where elections as well as gov't checks and balances have been demonstrated to keep gov't tyranny at bay; is there a reasonable case to be made that weapons designed and perfected for battlefield and urban combat roles should be the same weapons in people's homes.

Is personal defense, in and of itself, reason enough to be able to kill people 30 at a time?

I don't believe anyone on the anti-gun side of the argument gives a rip about what the rifle is called. I think we on the pro-gun side make a lot of hay about vocabulary because it's an easy (and cheap) way to score a few points in the argument. But it has nothing to do with the debate itself.

I would disagree. In and of itself, it is a battle of where responsibility lies.

You have two distinct views-
1.) People are capable and responsible beings, and thus are entitled to their right to firearms as personal objects to use as they see fit

2.) People are not capable and responsible, and thus should not possess such items, instead relying on a greater power (government) to provide any use of such items they need (police/military.)

It's really at its core a battle of self reliance versus the cradle to grave "we know what's best for you" model.

 

[cosermann]

...Is personal defense, in and of itself, reason enough to be able to kill people 30 at a time? ...

Yes, yes it is. This is a question that has been asked by liberal media types a lot lately, often in the form of, "Why do you need a [insert "high capacity magazine", "assault rifle," etc.] for [insert "hunting," "personal defense," etc.]?

People who have to ask this question display a lack of knowledge of the dynamics of life threatening self-defense situations.

The innocent person who is suddenly exposed to a life or death situation, is ALREADY behind the curve in terms of reaction, and the adrenaline dump makes everything more difficult. Everyone starts moving.

Hit percentage therefore often plummets. NYPD has something like a 15% avg. hit probability from 1990-2000. So, if you're carrying a 10 shot gun, maybe you hit 1 to 2 times. If you're carrying a 30 shot gun, your hit rate triples. You NEED those extra rounds.

Since you're already behind the curve, you also need to be able to deliver an overwhelming countervailing force to turn the tide back on the aggressor, get inside his OODA, and regain an advantage. You NEED to be able to deliver this rapidly. Semi-autos are ideal for this.

Furthermore, attacks by MORE THAN ONE attacker are becoming the norm. Ten rounds may not cut it, to say nothing of the silly 7 rounds proposed in recent NYC legislation. You NEED those rounds.

Simply put, such firearms and magazines that are part of the current discussion are the BEST tools we have commonly available for the DEFENSE and PROTECTION of life. A firearm is a piece of SAFETY equipment just like a fire extinguisher, and when there's a fire you want the best you can get.

Often, anything less is simply not enough for the job.

Furthermore we'll have to continue to defend ourselves against criminals who will STILL be able to obtain such equipment, and be emboldened by the legislated down-arming of citizens (just as they have been by GFZs).

They won't be deterred by new laws, and bans aren't magic wands that cause such weapons to cease to exist.

 

[Cpt Caveman]

I swear there's anti gun trolls just running amok on here.