I can't help it that I found it absurd that you guys couldn't remember what one was considering the dozens of times you've been told over at least the last 3 years. But then nothing really surprises me anymore, especially after some of the stuff I've seen in this thread.

 

I haven't been on here three years so I must have missed your dissertation on "assault weapons."

 

Either way RTS I struggle with your opinions sometimes because you never suggest anything. You just tell people they are wrong.

That's a terrible argument.

 

Really? You really think that won't happen? The name Timothy McVeigh sound familiar?

While I cannot agree on semi autos, as they serve a purpose for hunters and also personal defense, I would have no problem with limiting magazines to 10 or so rounds.

 

Again there are issues with that also, howevever I would be fine with it. Typically in a defense scenario, if you cannot stop the threat within a few rounds, you probably are not going to. There are special circumstances that could be different and also there is the issue of his would you even regulate that? But for the most part I agree and would be fine with smaller magazines.

 

I've been waiting this entire time to hear someone mention smaller magazines,, as I would be ok with that. Yet up until now, all I have hears is how evil the AR 15 is.

 

Do shooters use the AR type gun because large magazines are readily available? That may be what makes it so "evil".

 

Also Jd I finally look forward to your reply and not just for your avatar :lol:

So we just select which guns terrorist and evil people, kill innocent people with? Just can't be the evil left wing AR?

 

But how will we stop those who want to use things such as a 3D printer? I do think we need to control it somewhat, but not prevent regular people from owning such things as AR's

 

(Yes, I know you are not on the side of banning them;) )

I don't own an AR' date=' but after all the wrangling in this thread, I think that's my next purchase. Kinda giddy about it now.[/quote']

 

Buy me one too, please? It's Christmas, have a heart.

Really? You really think that won't happen? The name Timothy McVeigh sound familiar?

 

But that doesn't support your argument of "ban a gun and terrorists use bombs, so let them have guns."

I haven't been on here three years so I must have missed your dissertation on "assault weapons."

 

Either way RTS I struggle with your opinions sometimes because you never suggest anything. You just tell people they are wrong.

 

Sounds like you and TTP. You want a suggestion? How about leave the 2nd amendment alone and instead attack the real problem. You claim I never suggest anything when in multiple threads I brought up how I think psychotropic drugs are the problem, how I think the lack of parenting as well as poor parenting is the problem, how I think gangs and the War on Drugs is the problem, yet I never suggest anything in your mind. In case you can't figure it out I've been suggesting we try to fix those problems since they are more the root then the object being used. Quite frankly I struggle with the ignorance of facts by you and a few others and where you choose to believe as well as use fear mongering instead. My question to you is how in the world do you see what you've done in this thread is anything but telling people that they're wrong?

Buy me one too, please? It's Christmas, have a heart.

 

I am kind of surprised that you don't own one yet.

But that doesn't support your argument of "ban a gun and terrorists use bombs, so let them have guns."

 

My argument is that if they can't use one type of weapon they will use another. In fact, if they can't get their hands on the guns they want they will use something much more deadly. If you think that is reaching or poor argument then you have your head in the sand.

Do shooters use the AR type gun because large magazines are readily available? That may be what makes it so "evil".

 

By shooters I imagine you are not talking about enthusiasts, but rather criminals?

 

If so, I can't answer your question, as I have no idea why they choose one gun over another. However, most rifles will accept a 20+ round clip. Even the ones that don't look evil. Which brings us back to the subject of banning an AR wouldnt solve anything.

 

Which brings us back to what I mentioned a few minutes ago. Guns are not the problem, people are. However if you want to even attempt to solve the problem without getting rid of the people that are the problem, your best bet is limiting magazine size.

 

That said, those large magazines will still be available and believe me when I say that the bad guys will find as many as they want, if they so choose. Essentially there is no real solution at this point, other than getting rid of the real problem, which has nothing to do with guns, ammo, or magazines. Those things are not the problem, the idiots that like to kill people are the problem.

Sounds like you and TTP. You want a suggestion? How about leave the 2nd amendment alone and instead attack the real problem. You claim I never suggest anything when in multiple threads I brought up how I think psychotropic drugs are the problem, how I think the lack of parenting as well as poor parenting is the problem, how I think gangs and the War on Drugs is the problem, yet I never suggest anything in your mind. In case you can't figure it out I've been suggesting we try to fix those problems since they are more the root then the object being used. Quite frankly I struggle with the ignorance of facts by you and a few others and where you choose to believe as well as use fear mongering instead. My question to you is how in the world do you see what you've done in this thread is anything but telling people that they're wrong?

 

So you are going to start raising other people's kids?

 

Oh maybe you are going to start using your medical degree to tell people what they should and should not take?

 

We have spent billions of dollars to do everything possible to fight drugs and gangs, but that is the problem?

 

It seems you are asking to do more of the same: talking about ignorance that may be the definition.

And to be honest, limiting magazine sizes would not help as much as most would believe.

So you are going to start raising other people's kids?

 

Oh maybe you are going to start using your medical degree to tell people what they should and should not take?

 

We have spent billions of dollars to do everything possible to fight drugs and gangs, but that is the problem?

 

It seems you are asking to do more of the same: talking about ignorance that may be the definition.

 

Everything I posted there is an absolute part of the problem. You can't really be that naive can you? By the way you accuse me of not answering a question earlier when you still have no answer to a question that I posed earlier this evening. Why no answer?

By shooters I imagine you are not talking about enthusiasts, but rather criminals?

 

If so, I can't answer your question, as I have no idea why they choose one gun over another. However, most rifles will accept a 20+ round clip. Even the ones that don't look evil. Which brings us back to the subject of banning an AR wouldnt solve anything.

 

Which brings us back to what I mentioned a few minutes ago. Guns are not the problem, people are. However if you want to even attempt to solve the problem without getting rid of the people that are the problem, your best bet is limiting magazine size.

 

That said, those large magazines will still be available and believe me when I say that the bad guys will find as many as they want, if they so choose. Essentially there is no real solution at this point, other than getting rid of the real problem, which has nothing to do with guns, ammo, or magazines. Those things are not the problem, the idiots that like to kill people are the problem.

 

Magazines would be a start. Body count would be lower at the very least!

 

I'm pretty sure you are talking about a morality movement like other posters and I still don't understand how you will get to happen.

Everything I posted there is an absolute part of the problem. You can't really be that naive can you? By the way you accuse me of not answering a question earlier when you still have an answer to question that I posed earlier this evening. Why no answer?

 

Did you ask me?

 

I must have missed it.