Sen. Frank Lautenberg: Why We Must Ban High-Capacity Gun Magazines

 

I am calling Tinkerbell on Sen Frank Lautenberg if he is where the 10% and 20% figures come from.

 

Below is where almost all the stats I read say.

 

Good Question: How Many People Are Killed By Assault Rifles? « CBS Minnesota

 

This link says 2.5% of shootings were with rifles (I was being generous when I said 4% it seems) and of that 2.5%, how many were semi autos with extended magazines? I would assume an even smaller percent.

Edited April 23, 201412 yr by PurplePride92
Rule 8

I have several high capacity magazines in my house and none them have shot anyone yet.

 

What are you waiting for???????

And he is completely wrong about 11 to 31. How long does it take change a magazine? About 2 or 3 seconds. Its not like a revolver. Reload is push a button that usually ejects the empty and just pop in the new one. The magazine limitation is very hollow.

 

 

With a little practice, reloading can become second nature and happen in a blink of an eye.

I think HIPPA laws should be relaxed somewhat so that a mental illness data base is available to use when the NICS line is approving a firearm sale. Some conditions need to have restriction in place to disallow firearms purchases to those individuals.

 

Domestic Violence needs to be part of the approval process as well, currently it is not.

 

It is insane that this is still the case. While farting around with wasted legislation like the Clinton Assault Weapons ban which had almost no affect as proven by the fact when the ban was lifted, shooting deaths fell, legislation which addresses certain mental illnesses and wife beaters WOULD save lives. I just don't get it. If I am not mistaking, ALL major 2nd amendment organizations support such legislation.

 

Colion Noir's view on high capacity magazines.

I hate the verbiage you use here..."their language". Many of us who want more controls are NOT trying to take away the rights of gun owners to own them.

 

I would say these two senators would qualify as gun ownership as a vice being "their language".

 

 

He cracks me up bringing race into it.

You know, Bert, I have been. I also believe there are those that do understand them as well as you do take the other side.

 

Another example of someone who does not have a clue about guns wanting to regulate them.

 

OK, my last Colion Noir video for the night. I can't help anything that picks on Hollywood.

 

So I am learning this and will continue to. It is the high magazine capacity not the gun.

 

That's interesting. I've got a lot of folks I'm friends with that I know have high capacity magazines I'd better watch out for these crazies trying to get a hold of mine to use in their mass murder spree that they must be planning......

I own a gun, and will probably own more in the future. With that being said, some gun advocates drive me crazy talking about how they "need" so many guns and why they "need" an AR-15 with extended mags. No, you don't NEED them, you just like them and want to have them. There is a difference.

 

Need is irrelevant and none of your or the governments business what I need. The fact is I have a right to own the weapon need is irrelevant. If we want to start nit picking rights given to us by the constitution by what other people deem we need I have a feeling a lot of our rights are in jeopardy.

Now I do see the compromise. The Gun Control advocates want NO guns or firearms, therefore, they are not getting all they want. To compare alcohol, cigarettes whatever to guns is just not a comparison. Guns were made to kill people in warfare or animals for food or eradication, simple as that. They weren't made for target practice, some now may be, but not originally. Alcohol and cigarettes were not made to kill people or things but for enjoyment.

 

The Constitution is a living document and has been amended 27 times since its implementation, so just because it is a right doesn't mean it can't be changed. It takes 2/3 of both houses to do that, I believe. Do I believe the 2nd Amendment will be changed? Not for a long time, if ever. Even though it's intent was for state militia and at that time was needed.

 

My personal opinion is that if you want to own a gun and put it under your bed, your pillow, whatever, no problem, your house, your life. If you hunt and want to own shotguns or rifles, no problem either. If you want to carry it concealed on you in the mall around me and my grandkids, I have a problem. It just makes no sense to me either why you would need something that fires 30 rounds in 2 seconds or whatever those guns do. Owning a tank, cannon, come on that is not a need. There has to be a line drawn. I do not own a gun and don't believe I ever will. As with most things want is more than need in these things.

 

By your post you show lack of understanding for the weapons. You also admit it is our right until an amendment change , so if you want the law to change fight for an amendment . Until that day happens I'm in my right to own an AR-15 and people need to quit trying to restrict my rights as an American.

Let's look at the laws that was changed in 2004 to allow these fast shooting magazines. Prior to that 10% of gun shootings were 10% by these types of weapons, since it has been legal that % has risen to 22%. So maybe the concealed weapon law has been successful as you say, but the weapons that are with the fast shooting magazines, not so much.

 

Let's look at facts mass shootings are lower today than they were during suppose assault weapon ban. But let's ignore facts.

I hate the verbiage you use here..."their language". Many of us who want more controls are NOT trying to take away the rights of gun owners to own them. I have listed my positions ad nauseum, and not one of them is to make gun ownership illegal.

 

I resent that gun owners and 2nd Ammendment activists paint everyone who doesn't fall lockstep in line with the NRA as trying to end a Constitutional right. It's extreme and it's flat out wrong. I could list the controls I want, and not one person in here would respond except maybe RTS, and then only to twist my words and throw out derisive remarks.

 

I don't "need" a gun. I personally feel very few people "need" a gun. But if it makes one feel safer, or then they have the right to own it. But not everyone should be allowed to own a gun, and those that don't have a desire or feel a need to own a gun should be made to feel they are somehow anti-American.

Oh please. Twist your words and throw out derisive remarks? There was a thread a while back where you were the divisive one and no one needed to twist anything, you were quite clear how you felt and now you sing a different tune. And show me where I EVER said those that don't want to own a gun are anti-American. I dare you. You can't because it doesn't exist. I've always said I'm cool with people not wanting to own a gun, like anything, it isn't for everyone. My problem comes in when people think others shouldn't have a right to own a gun. And guess what, when you push to ban certain guns, you're trying to deny their right to own it. Period.

 

I did not say all, I said the vast majority and I stand by that. I did look at their purpose today and that was it. Are you making a point or do you own one? Because in an earlier post you said in the response you didn't.

 

Again, I am not an expert and haven't pretended to be.

 

Vast majority is an utter fabrication. The vast majority of those who own those firearms do not engage in mass shootings or behaviors like that at all. There are approximately 1.6 million AR-15s in the U.S. today(or at least as per December 2012).

 

You are expecting me to believe that the "vast majority" of those gun owners plan on killing tons of people? Are you insane? If that were the case we would have had around 16 million deaths by AR-15s assuming each person with their "high capacity magazines" hit with 1/3 of their shots. As there were about 11,500 deaths by firearms last year in the United States I would suggest that you near certainty is well off.