NRA News Conference

[fr0sty]

Kind of the flip side of this, and we saw it in the most recent killings, the weapons were taken from a legitimate owner. Not only didn't those guns fail to protect her from her son, but they were then used in a heinous crime.

Granted, the guns not protecting her is a bit of a straw man argument, but it illustrates why some people believe that limits on normal gun owners could reduce some of these crimes.

Many people are looking for an easy answer to this. There isn't one.

I cannot argue the truth of these statements. However, the first 3 points you make are going to affect the legally armed citizen much more than the type of person who is going to perpetrate a mass shooting.

Making something illegal does 2 things. 1) restricts a responsible law-abiding citizen who either through moral choice or fear of penalty decides not to partake/own/act when it comes to those illegalities. 2) creates a black market to provide such illegal substances/services to the people who could care less about what our laws are.

[Woods Walker]

"Many people are looking for an easy answer to this. There isn't one."

On that one I agree with you 100%. We have some REAL problems as a society.

[Deebz]

The fact that the guns did not protect the mother who owned them (as I understand the situation from the news reports) simply shows that she was either uneducated about proper weapons storage and handling, or simply lazy. Of course, who is ever going to think that your own child is likely to take your gun and kill you with it. Like I said before, Evil will stop at nothing...

[JPH]

The idea that we should refuse to consider limits on firepower because a black market might emerge do not hold water. There are all kinds of things that we limit or slow down with laws, in spite of illegal trade. Should we allow child porn simply because some people continue to deal in it via black market? See how the logic falls away?

Please explain to me why a mag capacity in excess of 5 rounds is necessary for legitimate civilian use?

[Woods Walker]

??? Comparing child porn with the right to keep and bear arms? Now THAT'S a stretch! I may be wrong, but I don't ever recall seeing anything in the Constitution that refers to our "right to make and keep child porn shall not be infringed". Nice try, but I get your point.

"Please explain to me why a mag capacity in excess of 5 rounds is necessary for legitimate civilian use?"

Necessary by WHO'S definition? Yours? Mine? Michael Bloomberg's? And as far as I know there's NOTHING in the Constitution that refers to the us having to justify how we choose to excercise our natural freedoms to the government or to anyone else as long as we are doing it legally. To play devil's advocate again..........You say 5 rounds. Let's say I say 20 (that's just a number for arguement's sake...I have no set number), and Michael Bloomberg says 0. Who gets to choose? Who has the most clout?

We either have the right or we don't. You can't say that we have the right to have this arm, but not that one. Once you give elected people the power to determine what a legal "arm" is, then you may as well throw the whole 2A out, because it's no longer worth spit.

It's like saying that you have the freedom of speech, except if I disagree with you and then I get to determine what you can and cannot say. .

[JPH]

I was not comparing child porn to gun ownership. I was exposing the flaw in the logic that we should not restrict certain commerce on the grounds that it would simply be carried out illegally.

As far as the necessity for mags in excess of 5 rounds. I was not asking for a politicians definition of necessary or legitimate, I was asking for yours as a hunter and gun owner. Let's hear it.

And finally, you do have rights but you do not have the right to infringe on mine. As an example, you have freedom of speech but you do not have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. See my point?

[Deebz]

I'll agree that laws do at least slow down certain things. That's where the morals or fear of punishment comes into play. Your logic cuts both ways though... child porn IS illegal, and people continue to deal in it. Never mind the argument that the mere EXISTENCE of child pornography is damaging to an actual real live person... can't have kiddie porn without abusing some kiddies. The existence of guns does not inherently include mass murders, nor would the complete ABSENCE of guns in any way shape or from prevent mass murders from occurring.


I need more than 5 rounds in my magazine so that when I'm using my LEGAL weapon to defend against a person who has made a choice to kill as many people as they can and has procurred an ILLEGAL 30 round mag, I'm the one stopping to reload while the criminal is continuing to gun people down. Granted, I would hope that it would't take 5 shots to put a guy down once I decided to shoot, but in a situation of trying to hold a defensive position and lay down cover fire so other people could escape or seek shelter, 5 rounds just won't cut it...

[JPH]

I need more than 5 rounds in my magazine so that when I'm using my LEGAL weapon to defend against a person who has made a choice to kill as many people as they can and has procurred an ILLEGAL 30 round mag, I'm the one stopping to reload while the criminal is continuing to gun people down. Granted, I would hope that it would't take 5 shots to put a guy down once I decided to shoot, but in a situation of trying to hold a defensive position and lay down cover fire so other people could escape or seek shelter, 5 rounds just won't cut it...

Great! Now we're getting somewhere.

Will you please tell me how often private citizens engaged in legitimate self-defense enter into sustained shootouts that require laying down suppressive fire? I'd bet that it is less common than mass shootings have become. Is this a big concern of yours? That you are going to be called upon to burn through that many rounds in your own little war. Come on man!

[Woods Walker]

Of course I see your point, and I especially agree with the idea of not infringing upon each other's rights. So if you don't feel as though you need a clip that holds more than 5, then don't get a clip that holds more than 5.

My uses for clip capacity vary. My Browning A-Bolt slug gun has a 2 shot clip with one in the chamber. I've only shot more than once at a deer with that gun one time, and as it turned out I didn't need the second shot. When I'm out target shooting or plinking in my back field I like a clip as large as I can find, because they're a pain to load. If I were to be faced with a civil disaster either man or weather made I would want as much firepower as I could muster because in the event of my having to use it under those circumstances it may very well be a life or death situation for myself and my family.

I will also say at this point that I only answered the second part of your question because you are a friend that I respect and I also understand the context of what you are saying here. My standard answer to this question from anyone else is usually on the order of...

"Why do I feel like I "need" a certain firearm? Simple. Because people like you say I can't or shouldn't. It's not about need. It's about freedom."

[Deebz]

The number of times that private citizens become engaged in legitimate self defense SHOULD be exactly equal to the number of times that a mass murdering shooter appears.

Is this a big concern of yours? That you are going to be called upon to burn through that many rounds in your own little war. Come on man!

good question... but answer this: was sending your children off to school where a crazed gunman might walk down the halls shooting children a big concern of yours before Newtown?

my point?

You never know when the crap is gonna hit the fan. In fact, I'd lay $100 on the table that says I never end up in a situation where I shoot at a person. However, the possibility is there. I guess it goes back to my time in Cub Scouts, but I'd rather be prepared for what doesn't happen than be unprepared for what does...