07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 5253545556 ...
tools
  1. inthegalaxy's Avatar
    In new York city you can not legally Carrie a firearm. Concealed or not, it is our right and obedience to God to resist any movement that goes against such right. And to the previous reply that says what's the point of having more than ten bullets? Then what's the point of obama's security detail having 30 rounds to protect his kids if I can't mine? Only around 40 deaths caused by mass shootings, any other number u see is where gang members kill each other.. I want 30 rounds or more bc if these tarrants succeed in their plot, I want enough bullets to protect myself and my family from these scum. Over 14 million people own guns so if only one percent resist we will be able to take our homeland back.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Android Central Forums
    02-26-2013 12:00 PM
  2. Mooncatt's Avatar
    show me that data first of all, and second, regardless of how many were killed, the way in which they were killed, (not to take away anything from any death, its all sad honestly) but for a 17 year old to be able to acquire an ak or an ar, is ridiculous, and for that same 17 year old to be able to make his way to a movie theatre, or a school, or a mall and massacre an absurd amount of ppl is crazy, as opposed to two men getting into a disagreemen and one to take it too far and swing a hammer upside the others head....just being frank, obtaining high powered machince guns needs to be controlled, period.
    Sounds like you were misinformed in this and an earlier post you made referencing assault rifles. Assault rifles are able to fire more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger. I.e. the AK and machine guns you mentioned. Those have already been banned for the general public to own for years, if not decades. The only exceptions would be people that undergo even more extensive background checks and pay additional fees to own them legally. I don't have any hard data, but you can bet those owners are some of the most responsible gun owners out there and do everything they can to keep them secured.

    Assault weapons, like the AR you mentioned in line with the AK, are defined by cosmetic and magazine features. They are still semi-auto fire (one shot per trigger pull) like many other guns and legal to own. There are also guns that are more damaging than assault weapons that are not included in the definition.They just look more scary, and that's about all the prior assault weapons ban used to define what one was.

    do i fell as if some of these states are going overboard yes. but at the end of the day, each and every state has that power...State governments control their own, while federal only upholds the constituion and handles the finances of the states. (at least thats the way its supposed to be)...
    State governments still have to stay within the bounds of the U.S. constitution. The 10th amendment that we've all probably heard of being used recently to try fighting the Obamacare legislation and assert "states rights" only applies to items not expressly laid out in the constitution.

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

    The second amendment part about the right to bear arms includes the line "shall not be infringed," which makes it an over-arching restriction on both Federal and State level. So the 10th amendment doesn't apply here. There could be the argument that it also means we should be allowed military use guns, tanks, etc, but it's evident that the amendment is meant for mostly defensive reasons, not to actively go out and attack others and engage in war. Kinda like how the 1St amendment doesn't give you the right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire.
    Chosen414 likes this.
    02-26-2013 12:00 PM
  3. backbeat's Avatar
    Maybe you should read it again.

    Short list of what happens when the citizens are disarmed and the government turns tyrannical.

    1911 Turkey disarms then from 1915-1917 1.5 Armenians were killed

    1929 Russia disarms then from 1929-1923 20 million Russian citizens are slaughtered

    1935 China disarms then from 1948-1952 20 million Chinese citizens murdered

    1938 Germany disarms then from 1939-1945 over 16 million Jewish citizens were massacred

    1956 Cambodia disarms then from 1975-1977 over 1 million are killed

    1970 Uganda disarms then from 1971-1979 over 300,000 Christians are murdered
    And when States repeal the rights of their citizens to keep and bear arms to protect their lives and property, it will matter. This has not happened. Nor is there a single proposal to allow repeal to even be considered.
    02-26-2013 12:02 PM
  4. Fisack23's Avatar
    In response to the original thread, how many of these gun manufacturers ACTUALLY SELL to the government or the police? From what I can see, only a handful have actually done business with the government, and those have all been with New York officials. The rest are boutique shops that do custom (private) sales. It seems to be simply a support gesture, and not an actual "I'm going to lose sales because of this" practice.
    02-26-2013 12:19 PM
  5. nolittdroid's Avatar
    And everyone forgets the largest, richest SuperPac in the US is the NRA. Shocker.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Android Central Forums
    droidmyme likes this.
    02-26-2013 12:20 PM
  6. backbeat's Avatar
    Assault weapons, like the AR you mentioned in line with the AK, are defined by cosmetic and magazine features. They are still semi-auto fire (one shot per trigger pull) like many other guns and legal to own. There are also guns that are more damaging than assault weapons that are not included in the definition.They just look more scary, and that's about all the prior assault weapons ban used to define what one was.
    It's a real shame that no one on your side of this issue has put up figures on the most popular firearms' capabilities where rounds per minute are concerned. Definitions don't carry water where capacity to kill in volume is included in the equation.
    02-26-2013 12:22 PM
  7. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    False. The catchall category of blunt objects includes hammers, clubs, etc ... Meaning all objects which were not designed/intended to be used as a weapon.

    http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/...er-victims.png

    Assault weapons kill more people within a single incident than any other weapon. How long did it take Loughner to empty his 33-round clip, inflicting 33 wounds? 15 seconds.

    These are the facts and they are inconvenient.
    I haven't finished reading all the replies, but it's funny that no one is talking about banning hand guns, which are BY FAR the biggest cause of firearm murders (according to your info). Would be curious to know what the "other guns or type not stated" is specifically. Do they consider "military style" rifles a rifle? Or other?
    02-26-2013 12:24 PM
  8. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    It's a real shame that no one on your side of this issue has put up figures on the most popular firearms' capabilities where rounds per minute are concerned. Definitions don't carry water where capacity to kill in volume is included in the equation.
    I will say that it doesn't matter at all how fast you can pull the trigger if you can't control the weapon and hit your target. Blindly pulling the trigger only works when (yep, I'm going to say it) you're aiming at a concentrated, large group of targets (I'm not trying to be cold by using the word "target"). But that holds true for ane semi-auto weapon. Hand-gun, shotgun, rifle, etc.
    Live2ride883 likes this.
    02-26-2013 12:26 PM
  9. backbeat's Avatar
    You should rethink that. Ask those of us who have seen what they can do first hand.
    Enter, the real world .....
    02-26-2013 12:27 PM
  10. Chosen414's Avatar
    Sounds like you were misinformed in this and an earlier post you made referencing assault rifles. Assault rifles are able to fire more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger. I.e. the AK and machine guns you mentioned. Those have already been banned for the general public to own for years, if not decades. The only exceptions would be people that undergo even more extensive background checks and pay additional fees to own them legally. I don't have any hard data, but you can bet those owners are some of the most responsible gun owners out there and do everything they can to keep them secured.

    Assault weapons, like the AR you mentioned in line with the AK, are defined by cosmetic and magazine features. They are still semi-auto fire (one shot per trigger pull) like many other guns and legal to own. There are also guns that are more damaging than assault weapons that are not included in the definition.They just look more scary, and that's about all the prior assault weapons ban used to define what one was.



    State governments still have to stay within the bounds of the U.S. constitution. The 10th amendment that we've all probably heard of being used recently to try fighting the Obamacare legislation and assert "states rights" only applies to items not expressly laid out in the constitution.

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

    The second amendment part about the right to bear arms includes the line "shall not be infringed," which makes it an over-arching restriction on both Federal and State level. So the 10th amendment doesn't apply here. There could be the argument that it also means we should be allowed military use guns, tanks, etc, but it's evident that the amendment is meant for mostly defensive reasons, not to actively go out and attack others and engage in war. Kinda like how the 1St amendment doesn't give you the right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire.

    i stand corrected on the first matter, but as to the second, being the 2nd amendment....at very end of the day like so many have said, you can still bear arms...but by limtiing what type of arms (weapon, guns) it limits the option and availabilty to have incidents occur that pull at the heart strings, Sandy Hook was prolbably the saddest thing ive heard in a long time, but whats worse is that with so much consistency ppl have become so insensitive to the fact that yes people kill people and they use guns, but THEY USE GUNS! among other things, but here's the difference, when people kill using blunt force objects, its more likely than not out of anger, or an altercation where the persons didnt have availibilty to guns, as opposed to where guns have spilled into gang warfare, (which i witness daily living in detroit) and just outright ignorance...the restrictions are needed.
    02-26-2013 12:30 PM
  11. backbeat's Avatar
    I will say that it doesn't matter at all how fast you can pull the trigger if you can't control the weapon and hit your target. Blindly pulling the trigger only works when (yep, I'm going to say it) you're aiming at a concentrated, large group of targets (I'm not trying to be cold by using the word "target"). But that holds true for ane semi-auto weapon. Hand-gun, shotgun, rifle, etc.
    And this is why revolvers are not being included in any proposed manufacturing ban. Mass deaths, in a societal structure, out-weigh the priority of simple handgun-related deaths. Instruments of death which can effect dozens of deaths in as many seconds are reasonably the priority.
    droidmyme likes this.
    02-26-2013 12:36 PM
  12. ny_yankees's Avatar
    In new York city you can not legally Carrie a firearm. Concealed or not, it is our right and obedience to God to resist any movement that goes against such right. And to the previous reply that says what's the point of having more than ten bullets? Then what's the point of obama's security detail having 30 rounds to protect his kids if I can't mine? Only around 40 deaths caused by mass shootings, any other number u see is where gang members kill each other.. I want 30 rounds or more bc if these tarrants succeed in their plot, I want enough bullets to protect myself and my family from these scum. Over 14 million people own guns so if only one percent resist we will be able to take our homeland back.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Android Central Forums
    except outside your family no one care who the heck you are but most people care who the President is. Unlike you the President receives death threats from right wing NRA Republicans members who are on a grand delusional propaganda whre they believe he is some Kenyana born socialist/marxist/communist/dictator (nevermind they have clue to any of that is really) on a daily basis, so hence he needs more security. Just like your boy LaPierre, who says all you need is a concealed weapon to protect yourself yet the guy has his own personal body guards protecting

    Btw didnt your God says "thou shall not kill"? So what is this "obedience to God" that says you MUST have an instrument that is meant to kill or apply lethal force? Funny how it works: insert religion and justify w/e cause you need to
    msndrstood likes this.
    02-26-2013 12:36 PM
  13. ny_yankees's Avatar
    I love shooting guns, especially a AR-15 and AK-47. Its a great fun past time and I always recommend it everyone. There is something fun about shooting a target from a long distance with accuracy and precision. But I also understand the danger certain weapons posses to society. A lot of people are worried about government take over and enslavement of their citizens. But guess what its 2013, our rights are won at the Courts not at the streets with violence. In 2004, one year after the the 93 AW Ban expired, everyone had their AR-15 with their threaded barrel, telestock, flash suppressor, 30 round mag, and guess what? Not one of those AR-15 were used to stop the Republican Bush and Republican House and Senate from passing the Patriot Act which is a 27 Constitutional Amendment violation. Instead people were told to tow the party line of "Well I have nothing to hide so I am good and blah blah blah". If the government wanted to take over us, they would do it without ever requiring a civilian to fire a shot. Its time we realized that we live in a civil society and certain things are outdated in today's modern societies. We can still have our 2nd Amendment and our guns without having to have every single dangerous weapons on our hands
    msndrstood likes this.
    02-26-2013 12:58 PM
  14. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    And this is why revolvers are not being included in any proposed manufacturing ban. Mass deaths, in a societal structure, out-weigh the priority of simple handgun-related deaths. Instruments of death which can effect dozens of deaths in as many seconds are reasonably the priority.
    I didn't specify revolvers. Why don't you do a search on how many rounds per minute you can get out of a semi auto pistol, and revolver just for the fun of it.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    02-26-2013 12:58 PM
  15. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Found this in a discussion.

    When we transitioned to the Glock we ran a little race. 5 shots into the B27 at probably 5 yards. I was able to do it in 1.53 seconds from the holster to the last shot and from concealment. I should say we were permitted to have our hands on the butt of the weapon. So, that equals 214 rounds per minute unless we make allowances for the draw and sight acquisition and remove it, which we should for this equation. I will venture an educated guess that the time not pulling the trigger was about 3/4 of a second, I don't really know and am just guessing here. This gives 384.6 rounds per minute. A full auto Glock will do multiples of that. I am quite sure a pro shooter can do far better than I can. I will guess that 450 rpm+ is attainable while keeping lead on a largish target

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    02-26-2013 01:02 PM
  16. Mooncatt's Avatar
    It's a real shame that no one on your side of this issue has put up figures on the most popular firearms' capabilities where rounds per minute are concerned. Definitions don't carry water where capacity to kill in volume is included in the equation.
    If that's the case, a clip load pistol can be fired just as fast as the AR. While you can argue lower clip capacities and higher reloading cycles/times (negligible anyway with how quick a clip can be changed), a pistol can be easily concealed and allow you to get closer to your target(s) for more effective shots. Most mass shootings happen where there is a large captive group of people, usually where guns are not allowed to begin with. It doesn't take a rapid fire marksman to rack up the numbers. So debating on killing in volume doesn't come in to play unless you want to ban any clip loaded weapon.
    02-26-2013 01:20 PM
  17. backbeat's Avatar
    Found this in a discussion.

    When we transitioned to the Glock we ran a little race. 5 shots into the B27 at probably 5 yards. I was able to do it in 1.53 seconds from the holster to the last shot and from concealment. I should say we were permitted to have our hands on the butt of the weapon. So, that equals 214 rounds per minute unless we make allowances for the draw and sight acquisition and remove it, which we should for this equation. I will venture an educated guess that the time not pulling the trigger was about 3/4 of a second, I don't really know and am just guessing here. This gives 384.6 rounds per minute. A full auto Glock will do multiples of that. I am quite sure a pro shooter can do far better than I can. I will guess that 450 rpm+ is attainable while keeping lead on a largish target
    Mass killings is the issue. Not the instrument of death to deliver it. Are semi-auto handguns the leading firearm of choice among mass killings in the US? No.
    Live2ride883 likes this.
    02-26-2013 01:26 PM
  18. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Mass killings is the issue. Not the instrument of death to deliver it. Are semi-auto handguns the leading firearm of choice among mass killings in the US? No.
    Isn't this like what the gun rights people have been advocating all along? Don't go after the gun, go after the people doing the shootings.

    As to the last part of your post, it contradicts your earlier one where you seemed concerned with the "capabilities" to do a mass shooting, and not with the apparent weapon of choice that's been used in said shootings. Which is it?
    Live2ride883 likes this.
    02-26-2013 01:40 PM
  19. backbeat's Avatar
    Isn't this like what the gun rights people have been advocating all along? Don't go after the gun, go after the people doing the shootings.

    As to the last part of your post, it contradicts your earlier one where you seemed concerned with the "capabilities" to do a mass shooting, and not with the apparent weapon of choice that's been used in said shootings. Which is it?
    What you are conveniently overlooking is that the point is ... any manufactured instrument which is being used to carry out mass killings at the ever-increasing rate in which they are occurring is subject to being duly regulated. No need to compare death-by-refrigerator statistics (for those so inclined).

    This point is completely lost on those wrapping themselves in a false-definition of the 2nd amendment. Exactly why these threads predictably go in the direction they do. Rinse & Repeat, ad nauseum.
    02-26-2013 01:58 PM
  20. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Mass killings is the issue. Not the instrument of death to deliver it. Are semi-auto handguns the leading firearm of choice among mass killings in the US? No.
    What you are conveniently overlooking is that the point is ... any manufactured instrument which is being used to carry out mass killings at the ever-increasing rate in which they are occurring is subject to being duly regulated. No need to compare death-by-refrigerator statistics (for those so inclined).

    This point is completely lost on those wrapping themselves in a false-definition of the 2nd amendment. Exactly why these threads predictably go in the direction they do. Rinse & Repeat, ad nauseum.
    In a previous post you had a statistic that showed hand guns were by far the most used firearm in murders. So now you're trying to differentiate between murder and mass murder? So now we have something else to argue over what the definition is.

    Mass murder may be tragic, but overall it's a small percentage of total murder committed, right? So why not try to prevent murder in general and not just mass murder?

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    Live2ride883 likes this.
    02-26-2013 02:27 PM
  21. Mooncatt's Avatar
    What you are conveniently overlooking is that the point is ... any manufactured instrument which is being used to carry out mass killings at the ever-increasing rate in which they are occurring is subject to being duly regulated. No need to compare death-by-refrigerator statistics (for those so inclined).
    That's fine and we can disagree and debate that issue. I'm just making sure we're on the same page because of your earlier contradiction of debating on capability over actual use.

    This point is completely lost on those wrapping themselves in a false-definition of the 2nd amendment. Exactly why these threads predictably go in the direction they do. Rinse & Repeat, ad nauseum.
    So what do you claim is the correct definition, be it your own interpretation, judicial precedence, what your source of news tells you, etc?
    02-26-2013 02:30 PM
  22. backbeat's Avatar
    Mass murder may be tragic, but overall it's a small percentage of total murder committed, right? So why not try to prevent murder in general and not just mass murder?
    It's a real shame that our society has absolutely no measures to prevent unnecessary loss of life, isn't it?

    Government can only do so much to reasonably reel in the stupidity of its people in a civil society.
    02-26-2013 02:57 PM
  23. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    It's a real shame that our society has absolutely no measures to prevent unnecessary loss of life, isn't it?

    Government can only do so much to reasonably reel in the stupidity of its people in a civil society.
    You're deflecting and failed to respond to the rest of my post. Even this response is a deflective answer.
    02-26-2013 03:14 PM
  24. backbeat's Avatar
    That's fine and we can disagree and debate that issue. I'm just making sure we're on the same page because of your earlier contradiction of debating on capability over actual use.
    Although I've made no such contradiction, we indeed can disagree and debate the issue.

    So what do you claim is the correct definition, be it your own interpretation, judicial precedence, what your source of news tells you, etc?
    The subject of another thread, isn't it? The false-premise of this thread has, predictably, already collapsed upon itself.
    02-26-2013 03:16 PM
  25. crackberrytraitor's Avatar
    Banning assault weapons wouldn't stop spree killings one iota. Recent government studies showed clearly that that the overruling majority of killing sprees were conducted using shotguns and handguns.

    Hell, the college watchtower killings were executed with a bolt action rifle. He just methodically picked people out of the crowd.

    A semi auto handgun can fire just as fast as a semi auto assault rifle. Ban high capacity magazines you say? Cool, the nutter will just strap 15 magazines across his chest and spend an extra 1.5 seconds popping in a new one for every half dozen people he knocks off.

    Guns are not the problem here. If they were, we wouldn't have only started seeing these kinds of killings regularly in the last 40 years or so.

    This whole tissy isn't about reducing gun violence, it's about finding a scapegoat so people can feel better.

    Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums
    Live2ride883 and Markster1 like this.
    02-26-2013 03:17 PM
4,617 ... 5253545556 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD