NRA News Conference

[fr0sty]

We already have a precedent for determining which weapons a civilian can and can't have. Civilian access to machines guns is highly regulated. Semi auto's with high capacity magazines are somewhere in between a .50 cal front stuffer and a machine gun as to the rate of fire they can bring to bear. The debate isn't whether we can regulate which weapons are allowed to the public, but which ones are allowed and which are not.

Also, so as not to confuse anyone. I will take various sides during this debate to help find the weak points in my own argument. Don't confuse that for support of specific point of view

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]

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.

As for the inconvenience of target shooting with a 5 round mag, I say tough. I agree that high-cap mags are nice. It's just something I'd have to get used to.

As for the potential civil disaster? I'd say we have one on our hands now and crazy people are getting really into high-cap mag use. The old arguments about potential disasters don't hold up well in the face of the real ones.

And again, remember that I am a gun owner who has owned his own AR with multiple high-cap mags. I currently own a Ruger 10-22 with several 10 and 25 rounders and a Glock 26 with three 10 round mags.

[Woods Walker]

Well I don't own an AR. Wouldn't mind having one but until our economy comes back it's a dream. And I wouldn't short change the self defense in case of a disaster scenario either. Maybe it's never happened to you...and God willing it never will...but I know people, family member in fact, who it DID happen to. They were owners of a small appliance store in Newark, New Jersey during the 1960's race riots. If they hadn't stood guard visably armed with shotguns and rifles they would have been wiped out like the unguarded stores all around them. Very ugly to be sure, but the bottom line is that ultimately YOU, and no one else, is responsible for your personal saftey and well being as well as that of your property.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one J'per. My 2A rights will have to be taken from me. I will not give them up voluntarily.

[Woods Walker]

"The debate isn't whether we can regulate which weapons are allowed to the public, but which ones are allowed and which are not."

??????????? LOL! You'd better 'splain that one more Frost! Sounds like 6 of one and 1/2 a dozen of the other!

[kellory]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fv ... _wSa8&NR=1 recommend silent, language is foul.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=Hx0 ... =endscreen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ls4Uq1aCiTA
I don't think the momentary pause is worth weakening anyone rights. As to how often could a civilian expect to have to lay down suppressor fire?, simple answer is hopefully never! But if I ever do, I will be damned before I will give the advantage to the nutcase trying to kill people.
The purpose of the Second Amendment, was to keep the citizen on the same level as a soldier,to prevent Government from taking your rights from you, and you wish to simply hand them over. You would hamstring the legal gun owners, to add a penalty to the list of charges to file against the nutcase.He doesn't care about the law, murder is already illegal. That is completely useless, He will most likely be dead before charges can be drawn-up.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/19/opinion/b ... index.html Gun-free zones kill more than they save. It is a Target Rich Environment, with no one to shoot back.
http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=4079 I would serve my fellows, not restrict them. As time and money allow, I will apply for my CCW. I am willing to burn a couple of vacation days a year, on service rather than hunting.
I see no real difference with 1,000 rounds in 34 mags, or 1,000 in 200 mags. except that it could interfere with protecting those I care about. .http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 2tIeRUbRHw This is well worth the 8 minutes to watch it.

[mnslayer]

Why does everyone blame guns. In every mass shooting of late the shooter was on some form of psycotic drug. maybe we should look closer at what these drugs are doing to people. We have passed laws and rules to keep guns out of certain places and all it has done is make these places prime targets. These cowards look for places they are unchallenged at. When was the last time a rifle range was shot up or attacked. just a thought

[fr0sty]

Maybe I don't type my werds too good Ok, what I was trying show that the below statement of yours has already been determined a moot point. The gov't already limits civilian weapons and determines which are legal. That train has left the station. My example was machine guns, but you could also include full auto weapons. What's going to be debated again in this latest round of gun control is what rate of fire does a civilian have the right to possess. I think is a discussion worth having.

Backing up strongly held beliefs on the pro gun side with concrete data that shows more guns, bigger clips and fast rates of fire doesn't add to the unjust killing of others can only help. I don't see much of that being done. I would hope we can find impartial data from the various states and other countries on how their gun deaths and over all murder rates compare to our own. Do some gun controls make for lower death rates? Is that difference enough to warrant limitations on the 2nd? I don't know.

In my mind, gun owners have an image problem. The only "role models" non gun owners see for the most part are criminals, sad accidents in the home and mass killings as we saw here recently. I suppose I could include slob bambi killers too. The wild eyed "you can take my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands crowd" doesn't convince the middle who may be swayed one way or another as to the usefulness of gun controls. I know there are some high profile pro gun folks who think logic and reasoned arguments have no place in the gun debate and would rather loud mouth their opinions. I disagree. I don't think "because it's my right" is going to be enough right now. Dead children have a way of affecting people like that.

Just so I am on the record, I'm not in favor of addition control laws.

"The debate isn't whether we can regulate which weapons are allowed to the public, but which ones are allowed and which are not."

??????????? LOL! You'd better 'splain that one more Frost! Sounds like 6 of one and 1/2 a dozen of the other!

[Woods Walker]

That's easy minn.....they may be crazy, but they're not STUPID!

The stupid ones are the people who put kids in undefended densely populated places, like SCHOOLS!

[Woods Walker]

"The gov't already limits civilian weapons and determines which are legal. That train has left the station. My example was machine guns, but you could also include full auto weapons."

YES!!! That's the point! It started when they banned full auto weapons! It was a reaction to the prohibition era booze wars, and the ban on full auto DID NOT stop those killings....the end of prohibition did.

So first the banned full auto. Now they want to ban "evil looking" rifles that are functionallty no different than 90% of the hunting weapons we all use. If they do it will not work either. The will come back looking to deny us of even more of our rights. Like I said, I've been involved in this fight for 44 years and the arguments NEVER, EVER change.

[fr0sty]

Fair enough, at least your are consistent. I don't see a way to reverse those restrictions. That being said, I would love to blast a machine gun or full auto some time