Apparently there are a few liberals here who don't like to hear the truth. So, jph and unclebuck, was anything I posted false?? When you consider the number of shooting deaths in Chicago for the year 2012, and to date; that alone supports my argument. Even the NAACP has recently commented that blacks killing blacks is the reason they support gun bans!!!!!!! Think back to the days prior to the influx of drug cartels and gang activity. Can either of you claim that the current violence in the cities was equal to what we are witnessing today?????? My point was that it's unfair to use Canadian crime figures as a measuring stick when studying American gun violence, due to the lower populations and fewer major metropolitan areas, as well as the demographics of those population centers.
To answer the questions about why we should not ban certain types of guns or have magazine restrictions, I would reply that if we give up one single right we will eventually lose them all. I would also point out that the only time I have to limit my magazine capacity to only 3 rounds in a shotgun, is when I'm hunting Migratory Birds and because the Federal law requires a 3 shot limit. No other restrictions on shotgun capacities exist in SC for deer, turkey, quail or any other small game or varmint hunting. Also, considering that when I'm hunting deer in the swamps and the dogs are running them, the odds are that without at least the capability of 5 shots, I'd be missing more than hitting. It isn't easy to hit a running deer when it's in the water and running through thickets that even a beagle can't get through. As for an AR style rifle, I like to be able to shoot multiple targets when I encounter a pack of coyotes that consists of 15 or more. Just as I often use a bolt action rifle with 1 in the chamber and 4 in the magazine, when I have an opportunity to shoot two or three deer in a food plot, the AR or my BAR make it much simpler to achieve. Also, having higher capacity magazines enable individuals to protect themselves, their families and properties when being attacked by multiple armed thugs. Why should I be limited to 7 rounds, when I could be facing 5 or 6 bad guys with evil intentions and each of them is armed with even a single shot weapon or knife? When we use the Second Amendment as grounds for not sacrificing guaranteed rights, it's because we believe that the framers of the Constitution believed that "we the people" should have access to the same type of arms that our government has. I'd be willing to bet that if German citizens could go back and do things differently, their hindsight would significantly improve.
What many people believe isn't "needed" for hunting, is usually based on what they are used to in their hunting environment, and what most people view as sufficient for protection doesn't take into account the different situations and scenarios that could be encountered. I for one, don't believe that the Federal Government has the right to dictate to it's citizens what they can or can not own, just as they should not endeavor to tell us what we can eat, how large our drinks can be, or what type or amount of insurance we must purchase!
NRA LM, NAHC LM, Buckmasters LM, The Second Amendment Foundation, GOA, NAGR, Palmetto Gun Rights, , ASAdisabled sportsmens' alliance, EDH, and Proud SC redneck REBEL still flying the Stars and Bars!