Gun Control Compromise Poll #2

[Dave-O]

I don't know what response this will recieve but here goes, I am certain in this forum there is a very diverse assortment of weapons owned, I myself on almost all days carry a keltec 380 auto, it's lite, small and I forget it is there, somedays on the road a glock 36, but if I have a threat made towards me or my gut feels danger may be eminent I get a 357 airweight S&W relvolver from the safe, no fears of it jamming, it is there when I need it, reliable, and if a round does not fire the next one with a simple squeeze of the trigger certainly will. I have about as a diverse collection of weapons as anyone I know, When my safes open jaws usually drop. My point is if I were going to do major devastation, the guns he chose would not be high on my list, they would actually be on the lower rungs of the ladder. Look at vietnam, any soldier would have gladly traded his m16 for a 870 pump extended magazine loaded with 00 buck in close quarter combat. If you were going to your safe and choosing a weapon to go into a confined tight area to do major harm to a large group how many here would choose the guns he choose or they are talking about banning. They are going after what they know to fear courtesy CNN not what they should fear. IMHO
I am not advocating any ban of any type but this is like they were attacted by a pit bull.............. they have no fear of a doberman.
It is not the dog but the person that trained it, or the parent that raised it in these recent cases

 

[tradertator]

Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

 

[tradertator]

These people are not looking for "compromise". They are looking to repeal the second amendment. It worked so well with the 18th

 

[revance]

It takes 2 seconds to shove a new mag in.

Police didn't enter the school for 40 minutes.

I fail to see how it matters how many rounds the mag holds.

 

[techres]

What would you trade your 30 round mags for? Full auto pistols? Sawed off shotguns? Those things don't seem necessary or practical to me, but what floats your boat? Come up with something GOOD.

Lipstick.

'Cause if I'm gonna get...

 

[Dave-O]

I think everyone here would agree that it is not the fear of this compromise but the reality of where it will lead. I along with the majority here would gladly give up every ar-15 I own along with every mag that would fit it free of charge if it meant that another child would ever die from a bullet comming out of one. That is not a realistic expectation, a realistic expectation is that if they were to ban total ownership of ar platform guns, ak-47's will be used next so ban them, then 870 extended mag shotguns ban them, H&R topper then kentucky long rifle last. The first choice of a killer is most likely going to be a gun even a single shot. Lets ban all guns tomorrow, will innocent chilren at schools stop dying on friday, likely not, even in a totally gun free society. We all are opposed to any gun ban which to the outside world looks insane, but we all know what it will ultimately lead to, no guns and innocent people still dying and there will still be mass murders. I will also say here as I have said in the past. If I am ever in a place a mass murderer targets I hope the attact is by a gun. Even a ar-15. I have a chance to hide and defend myself from the fire. If we take guns completely out of the picture, what will the attacks be from, my chances of being able to defend myself from those cenarios are slim and there will likely be by far more killed.

 

[jmiller676]

I don't understand why we are compromising on something that is the supreme law of the land? How about we compromise on free speech as well, if you don't like what I say you can just shut the fk up about it because I think you have no right to say anything against me.