Fear of anti-gun legislation makes gun sales go through the roof in Colorado

What freedom is that? The freedom to kill anyone you want? Ownership of weapons is forbidden here. I don't need weapons to defend myself. I wouldn't wish for a weapon if someone points a weapon at me. I would wish my adversary would not have obtained that weapon to begin with. How do we do that? By banning guns. We're not f-ing soldiers, we're not in some private army or in a war, what kind of business would civilian have with a gun? Self-defence? Don't make my laugh. Guns are for cowards. Go join the military if you're into guns, maybe that way you'll learn the value of human life and how one's life is not worth taking for the sake of self-defence of your pitiful existence. Shoot all the virtual enemies with your virtual guns all you want, but only cowards use guns to fend themselves. True heroes use guns as a last means to save other's lives. Digusting how the world has devolved into savages that proclaim bearing arms is a constitutional right. Yes it is...that is if you are also willing to say that to the families of the deceased victims of this shooting. If you have credibility or any balls at all, you would say that to them.DrTrafalgarLaw

Don't be stupid. You know exactly which freedom I'm talking about. You've just confirmed you are actually an idiot, and a liar. Anybody would want a weapon with which to defend themselves with if they were being threatened and had no way of escape. It's human nature to defend ones life.

I used to be a "soldier", actually. Well, an airman, but it's a distinction without a difference in this conversation. I'm now a cop. I know the value of human life, which is why I would sleep perfectly fine at night if I had to kill someone in order to protect it.

Cowardice is only being represented by you. No one in their right mind would say anything but they're sorry to the families who have lost loved ones. You must be deluded.

Meh just a bunch of dummies that think the 'govment' is going to confiscate everything they own. This happens once in a while. HoolaHoopMan

Are you saying the government stealing someone's lawfully-obtained item isn't a good enough reason to not want gun control, or the banning of assault weapons?

[QUOTE="DrTrafalgarLaw"]American logic. And people wonder why the most shooting/massacre incidents like these happen primarily in America. :roll: Basically by shouting hick logic like "I have the right to bear arms!" you also have the right to get shot at. So what's the suggestion? Let everyone carry a weapon in case someone get crazy with it? Do americans distrust each other that much?airshocker

No we don't, we're simply unwilling to give up our freedoms for something that won't even work. There is no way any amount of gun control can work in America. Our country is SATURATED with firearms. Bans on assault weapons prevents law-abiding citizens from obtaining them. Does nothing to stop criminals from getting them.

It'll never work if you never begin to try. I don't know why you, or anyone else, wastes their time defending it with the defeatist argument: "it can't work, we have too many". Why not start chipping away at the problem, it doesn't have to be abrupt, why 'must' it be "do nothing"? Other nations function perfectly fine with far fewer guns, why can ours not?

And if we were to lose the 2nd amendment, that doesn't outright ban guns in the US. You have no constitutional right to own or operate a car, yet you may if you qualify. And the amendment is outdated, 221 years old, it could use revision.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Meh just a bunch of dummies that think the 'govment' is going to confiscate everything they own. This happens once in a while. airshocker

Are you saying the government stealing someone's lawfully-obtained item isn't a good enough reason to not want gun control, or the banning of assault weapons?

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Meh just a bunch of dummies that think the 'govment' is going to confiscate everything they own. This happens once in a while. airshocker

Are you saying the government stealing someone's lawfully-obtained item isn't a good enough reason to not want gun control, or the banning of assault weapons?

It'll never work if you never begin to try. I don't know why you, or anyone else, wastes their time defending it with the defeatist argument: "it can't work, we have too many". Why not start chipping away at the problem, it doesn't have to be abrupt, why 'must' it be "do nothing"? Other nations function perfectly fine with far fewer guns, why can ours not?

And if we were to lose the 2nd amendment, that doesn't outright ban guns in the US. You have no constitutional right to own or operate a car, yet you may if you qualify. And the amendment is outdated, 221 years old, it could use revision.

Inconsistancy

It'll never work PERIOD. There is no way to make such a thing happen. People will just hide their guns, and even if citizens turned them in, that still leaves the criminals. You solve absolutely nothing, all you do is keep criminals armed and the populace vulnerable. Of course this doesn't even go into the complete disregard for individual liberty. I guess liberty is okay as long as it's something you support as well?

Nothing needs to be done. If there was a massacre every single day maybe you'd have a point. There isn't, however. This country already makes it expensive to be a gun owner, I see no reason to add anymore costs to it.

Yes, it does effectively ban guns in the US. The only thing preventing places like CA and NY from banning weapons all-together is the precedents set by the over-turning of gun bans.

They aren't going to 'steal' anything, why would anyone think that? I like Australia's 'buy back' idea they had that's been brought up in this thread.Inconsistancy

Yeah, I'm SURE the government is going to pay me the market value of all the parts put into my AR-15 when they didn't even reimburse me for traveling from ND to NY when I was honorably discharged. No thanks.

Where is the government stealing anything at the moment? HoolaHoopMan

Answer my question.

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]They aren't going to 'steal' anything, why would anyone think that? I like Australia's 'buy back' idea they had that's been brought up in this thread.airshocker

Yeah, I'm SURE the government is going to pay me the market value of all the parts put into my AR-15 when they didn't even reimburse me for traveling from ND to NY when I was honorably discharged. No thanks.

Of course this doesn't even go into the complete disregard for individual liberty. I guess liberty is okay as long as it's something you support as well?

airshocker

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is the cut off for what you view as'arms' in the 2nd amendment?

Do you support the legal selling of armor piercing rounds, flamethrowers, landmines, weaponized bees, etc? The term arms seems to be open to interpretation. Where would you draw the line?

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Where is the government stealing anything at the moment? airshocker

Answer my question.

Was ND your home of record?LJS9502_basic

No, I've always been a resident of NY. They only paid me $700 when it cost me $1,700 to move back.

It'll never work PERIOD. There is no way to make such a thing happen. People will just hide their guns, and even if citizens turned them in, that still leaves the criminals. You solve absolutely nothing, all you do is keep criminals armed and the populace vulnerable. Of course this doesn't even go into the complete disregard for individual liberty. I guess liberty is okay as long as it's something you support as well?

Nothing needs to be done. If there was a massacre every single day maybe you'd have a point. There isn't, however. This country already makes it expensive to be a gun owner, I see no reason to add anymore costs to it.

Yes, it does effectively ban guns in the US. The only thing preventing places like CA and NY from banning weapons all-together is the precedents set by the over-turning of gun bans.

airshocker

No way it could ever work, none, none what so ever? Really, none? Not even a couple generations of time to get it through your mile and a half thick skull, it'd still never work? If you don't start somewhere, if you never begin to try, then 'obviously' it'll never work.

"Nothing needs to be done. If there was a massacre every single day maybe you'd have a point. There isn't, however. This country already makes it expensive to be a gun owner, I see no reason to add anymore costs to it."

Our intentional homicide rate is 3x higher than Canada's, and 86% of that is gun-related, yea.. there is 'no' goddamn reason. It just continues to cost needless human life, but that's the price you're willing to pay to keep your stupid ass guns.

"Yes, it does effectively ban guns in the US. The only thing preventing places like CA and NY from banning weapons all-together is the precedents set by the over-turning of gun bans."

Okay, so there will be places with gun bans, then we can see crime rate statistics in those states as the result! Sounds good to me tbfh.

Your question is quite irrelevant seeing as the government isn't 'stealing' guns away from anyone. HoolaHoopMan

No it's not. You're implying that not wanting the government to steal something somebody owns isn't a good enough reason for not wanting gun control.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Where is the government stealing anything at the moment? HoolaHoopMan

Answer my question.

Guv'mnt took my lawn darts!

:evil:

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Your question is quite irrelevant seeing as the government isn't 'stealing' guns away from anyone. airshocker

No it's not. You're implying that not wanting the government to steal something somebody owns isn't a good enough reason for not wanting gun control.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is the cut off for what you view as'arms' in the 2nd amendment?

Do you support the legal selling of armor piercing rounds, flamethrowers, landmines, weaponized bees, etc? The term arms seems to be open to interpretation. Where would you draw the line?

HoolaHoopMan

Flame-throwers yes, military-grade explosives(RPGs, missiles, grenades, plastique, other forms of explosive ordinance) no, armor piercing rounds no, squad automatic weapons(machine guns) no, high capacity and standard-sized magazines yes, and automatic assault rifles yes. That about covers what I'm for/against, I believe.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is the cut off for what you view as'arms' in the 2nd amendment?

Do you support the legal selling of armor piercing rounds, flamethrowers, landmines, weaponized bees, etc? The term arms seems to be open to interpretation. Where would you draw the line?

airshocker

Flame-throwers yes, military-grade explosives(RPGs, missiles, grenades, plastique, other forms of explosive ordinance) no, armor piercing rounds no, squad automatic weapons(machine guns) no, high capacity and standard-sized magazines yes, and automatic assault rifles yes. That about covers what I'm for/against, I believe.

::stubbornly:: "Give up, don't bother trying, it'll never work. Blah blah."

No way it could ever work, none, none what so ever? Really, none? Not even a couple generations of time to get it through your mile and a half thick skull, it'd still never work? If you don't start somewhere, if you never begin to try, then 'obviously' it'll never work.

"Nothing needs to be done. If there was a massacre every single day maybe you'd have a point. There isn't, however. This country already makes it expensive to be a gun owner, I see no reason to add anymore costs to it."

Our intentional homicide rate is 3x higher than Canada's, and 86% of that is gun-related, yea.. there is 'no' goddamn reason. It just continues to cost needless human life, but that's the price you're willing to pay to keep your stupid ass guns.

"Yes, it does effectively ban guns in the US. The only thing preventing places like CA and NY from banning weapons all-together is the precedents set by the over-turning of gun bans."

Okay, so there will be places with gun bans, then we can see crime rate statistics in those states as the result! Sounds good to me tbfh.

Inconsistancy

So because I disagree with you, my skull is thick? There's no chance it'll ever work.

Homicides will happen regardless of whether guns are banned or not. I see no reason to take away a means of defending ones self since Police can't be every place at once. Cars kill much more people than guns, I don't see you seeking their banning.

We've already seen crime statistics in cities that banned guns: THEY WERE HIGHER. Eliminating liberties always sounds good to fascists.

How did you come to those conclusions then? I'm guessing there's plenty of 'militia' members out there that think all of them should be safe. What rubric are you using to define arms? HoolaHoopMan

Because I'm a free-thinking individual that knows the differences between weapons and knows what the definition of arms is?

Oh, and add biological/chemical weapons no, and nuclear ordinance no to my list.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="DrTrafalgarLaw"]American logic. And people wonder why the most shooting/massacre incidents like these happen primarily in America. :roll: Basically by shouting hick logic like "I have the right to bear arms!" you also have the right to get shot at. So what's the suggestion? Let everyone carry a weapon in case someone get crazy with it? Do americans distrust each other that much?DrTrafalgarLaw

No we don't, we're simply unwilling to give up our freedoms for something that won't even work. There is no way any amount of gun control can work in America. Our country is SATURATED with firearms. Bans on assault weapons prevents law-abiding citizens from obtaining them. Does nothing to stop criminals from getting them.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]How did you come to those conclusions then? I'm guessing there's plenty of 'militia' members out there that think all of them should be safe. What rubric are you using to define arms? airshocker

Because I'm a free-thinking individual that knows the differences between weapons and knows what the definition of arms is?

Oh, and add biological/chemical weapons no, and nuclear ordinance no to my list.

So your answer is simply 'I'm a free thinking individual'. Good to know you're honest about being completely full of shlt. HoolaHoopMan

The only person full of it is you. What fvcking rubric do I need to determine which guns should be banned or not? I already listed the categories of weapons I would keep banned, what more do you want?

I don't need a militia telling me what weapons should or shouldn't be legal. I've used 90% of the weapons I've spoken about. I know their effectiveness. I know which could reasonably be used to defend ones self.

Make the point you've been leading up to, you melodramatic tool.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." end of story. surrealnumber5

Exactly, and this is why the citizenry should be free to buy weapons oriented around lethality. Banning assault weapons completely undermines that. The biggest reason the constitution gives for gun ownership as a protected right is as a means to ensure the liberty of the people and curb the government natural leanings toward tyranny. If they ban everything but small, ineffectual weapons, then they have undermined that right and positioned themselves for totalitarianism.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]So your answer is simply 'I'm a free thinking individual'. Good to know you're honest about being completely full of shlt. airshocker

The only person full of it is you. What fvcking rubric do I need to determine which guns should be banned or not? I already listed the categories of weapons I would keep banned, what more do you want?

I don't need a militia telling me what weapons should or shouldn't be legal. I've used 90% of the weapons I've spoken about. I know their effectiveness. I know which could reasonably be used to defend ones self.

Make the point you've been leading up to, you melodramatic tool.

[QUOTE="PernicioEnigma"]Gotta love Americas culture of fear. Keep it up guys, it's amusing. "Bu bu but., I need that assault rifle in case someone tries to hurt me!" It seems like you're willing to give up basic freedoms, but you're not truly oppressed until you lose your right to buy military grade weapons.LJS9502_basic

Are you kidding? The most common answer I hear to this argument is people need all these weapons for their safety. And no, I don't live in fear of gun violence because in my country it's much harder for people to buy weapons. Most people are far to mentally unstable to posses a weapon in which all you need to do to kill someone with is aim and pull a trigger.

I just can't get my head around how people can think the more people who own guns the safer you'll be. I know criminals will get a hold of them whether they are illegal or not, but it's not criminals I'm concerned about - they're just a minority in society - it's the average person who has access to all these guns at all times, and like any other human being, they are prone irrational thoughts (perhaps during periods of emotional distress, mental illness, etc). This recent massacre wasn't committed by a criminal, some would say he'd be the last person they'd expect to commit such an atrocity, but here we are...

I don't know of anyone that lives in a culture of fear. You sure that's not just you? PernicioEnigma

Wanting something for safety doesn't mean you're living in fear.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]So your answer is simply 'I'm a free thinking individual'. Good to know you're honest about being completely full of shlt. airshocker

The only person full of it is you. What fvcking rubric do I need to determine which guns should be banned or not? I already listed the categories of weapons I would keep banned, what more do you want?

I don't need a militia telling me what weapons should or shouldn't be legal. I've used 90% of the weapons I've spoken about. I know their effectiveness. I know which could reasonably be used to defend ones self.

Make the point you've been leading up to, you melodramatic tool.

So because I disagree with you, my skull is thick? There's no chance it'll ever work.

Homicides will happen regardless of whether guns are banned or not. I see no reason to take away a means of defending ones self since Police can't be every place at once. Cars kill much more people than guns, I don't see you seeking their banning.

We've already seen crime statistics in cities that banned guns: THEY WERE HIGHER. Eliminating liberties always sounds good to fascists.

airshocker

Deaths 2010:
Gun-related: 31,224
Vehicles: 32,885

So many more...

No, your skull is 'thick' because of your "it'll never work" mentality. We'll never travel across the oceans, we'll never fly in the skies, we'll never get into space, we'll never get to the moon; women will never have rights, blacks will never vote... Never, never, never. Absolute doubt.

And I'm no fascist Mr. McCarthy.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="PernicioEnigma"]Gotta love Americas culture of fear. Keep it up guys, it's amusing. "Bu bu but., I need that assault rifle in case someone tries to hurt me!" It seems like you're willing to give up basic freedoms, but you're not truly oppressed until you lose your right to buy military grade weapons.PernicioEnigma

Are you kidding? The most common answer I hear to this argument is people need all these weapons for their safety. And no, I don't live in fear of gun violence because in my country it's much harder for people to buy weapons. Most people are far to mentally unstable to posses a weapon in which all you need to do to kill someone with is aim and pull a trigger.

I just can't get my head around how people can think the more people who own guns the safer you'll be. I know criminals will get a hold of them whether they are illegal or not, but it's not criminals I'm concerned about - they're just a minority in society - it's the average person who has access to all these guns at all times, and like any other human being, they are prone irrational thoughts (perhaps during periods of emotional distress, mental illness, etc). This recent massacre wasn't committed by a criminal, some would say he'd be the last person they'd expect to commit such an atrocity, but here we are...

Gotta love Americas culture of fear. Keep it up guys, it's amusing. "Bu bu but., I need that assault rifle in case someone tries to hurt me!" It seems like you're willing to give up basic freedoms, but you're not truly oppressed until you lose your right to buy military grade weapons.PernicioEnigma

Gotta love those who have no idea about America yet say it anyway.

Deaths 2010:
Gun-related: 31,224
Vehicles: 32,885

So many more...

No, your skull is 'thick' because of your "it'll never work" mentality. We'll never travel across the oceans, we'll never fly in the skies, we'll never get into space, we'll never get to the moon; women will never have rights, blacks will never vote... Never, never, never. Absolute doubt.

And I'm no fascist Mr. McCarthy.

Inconsistancy

Where's your calls to ban cars, then? Hypocrite.

Logistically there is no way to dearm a population of 300+ million without missing things and leaving a huge black market in it's wake. It is IMPOSSIBLE. Not to mention cops would refuse such orders, and those who actually defend the constitution(our troops) might as well.

You are a fascist.

[QUOTE="PernicioEnigma"]I don't know of anyone that lives in a culture of fear. You sure that's not just you? airshocker

Wanting something for safety doesn't mean you're living in fear.

You don't need a militia telling you what should be legal just as other people don't need you telling them. Sound familiar? I was actually hoping for an honest to god rubric, not just 'lol my intiution and common sense!'. I guess we should base arms laws based around Airshockers weapons expertise! What a joke.HoolaHoopMan

No, you were just trying to be a tool.

You already know I served in the military. I did two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. I've used almost every single weapon our country is equipped with. You also know I'm a cop. What other rubric do I need besides my expertise?

Not necessarily, but if you feel it's so important to have the right to own machine guns to keep you safe I think that's going way over the top.PernicioEnigma

And no one can reasonably argue that they need an M249 SAW to defend themselves. An assault rifle isn't a machine gun, by the way.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." end of story. GIJames248

Exactly, and this is why the citizenry should be free to buy weapons oriented around lethality. Banning assault weapons completely undermines that. The biggest reason the constitution gives for gun ownership as a protected right is as a means to ensure the liberty of the people and curb the government natural leanings toward tyranny. If they ban everything but small, ineffectual weapons, then they have undermined that right and positioned themselves for totalitarianism.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]You don't need a militia telling you what should be legal just as other people don't need you telling them. Sound familiar? I was actually hoping for an honest to god rubric, not just 'lol my intiution and common sense!'. I guess we should base arms laws based around Airshockers weapons expertise! What a joke.airshocker

No, you were just trying to be a tool.

You already know I served in the military. I did two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. I've used almost every single weapon our country is equipped with. You also know I'm a cop. What other rubric do I need besides my expertise?

Where's your calls to ban cars, then? Hypocrite.

Logistically there is no way to dearm a population of 300+ million without missing things and leaving a huge black market in it's wake. It is IMPOSSIBLE. Not to mention cops would refuse such orders, and those who actually defend the constitution(our troops) might as well.

You are a fascist.

airshocker

Gun related deaths, ~broken down:
~17300, suicide
~12500, homicide
~---710, accidental

How many people are committing suicide with their cars, and how many are running other people down intentionally? I think most car related deaths are accidental. If that were the case with guns, I'd say, "clearly the issue is gun safety, not gun violence" but that's not the case.

And how am I a fascist? Do you even know what fascism is?

The problem in America is not guns. It is the perverse gun culture that has developed over a considerable time period.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]You don't need a militia telling you what should be legal just as other people don't need you telling them. Sound familiar? I was actually hoping for an honest to god rubric, not just 'lol my intiution and common sense!'. I guess we should base arms laws based around Airshockers weapons expertise! What a joke.airshocker

No, you were just trying to be a tool.

You already know I served in the military. I did two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. I've used almost every single weapon our country is equipped with. You also know I'm a cop. What other rubric do I need besides my expertise?

I don't give a flying fvck if you've done any of that. It all comes down to your intuition which is a piss poor argument to base federal laws on. I'm willing to bet there are plenty of service members out there who would say the exact opposite, should we take their opinions over yours? HoolaHoopMan

You don't have to give a fvck about what I've done. What you do have to recognize, however, is that I'm far more of an expert on the capabilities of weapons than you. You asked for a rubric, that's mine. There's no intuition involved, only the cold hard facts of what certain weapons are capable of. You base laws on the testimony of experts every single fvcking day. There is no difference. Except that you don't like me.

I'm pretty sure not all service members did what I did in the Air Force. I was part of the 815th Security Forces group when I deployed. We specialized in force protection and integrated base defense. I was a security controller(desk sergeant) in Bagram AFB, Afghanistan and a QRF leader in Camp Bucca, Iraq. You can dislike me all you want, that doesn't change the fact that I know more about weaponry and their capabilities than you CoD-kiddies turned experts on GS.

Pathetic.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]I don't give a flying fvck if you've done any of that. It all comes down to your intuition which is a piss poor argument to base federal laws on. I'm willing to bet there are plenty of service members out there who would say the exact opposite, should we take their opinions over yours? airshocker

You don't have to give a fvck about what I've done. What you do have to recognize, however, is that I'm far more of an expert on the capabilities of weapons than you. You asked for a rubric, that's mine. There's no intuition involved, only the cold hard facts of what certain weapons are capable of. You base laws on the testimony of experts every single fvcking day. There is no difference. Except that you don't like me.

I'm pretty sure not all service members did what I did in the Air Force. I was part of the 815th Security Forces group when I deployed. We specialized in force protection and integrated base defense. I was a security controller(desk sergeant) in Bagram AFB, Afghanistan and a QRF leader in Camp Bucca, Iraq. You can dislike me all you want, that doesn't change the fact that I know more about weaponry and their capabilities than you CoD-kiddies turned experts on GS.

Pathetic.

Fine then explain to me why a SAW should be illegal but an assault rifle with a drug shouldn't be. HoolaHoopMan

Simply because cops don't have machine guns, neither should the populace.

As for the issue of magazines(I'm assuming you're referring to a drum magazine), I have less of an issue with high capacity drum magazines being banned than I do with the standard 30 round ones being banned. New York bans all 30 round magazines that were made after 1992. I think that's ridiculous and doesn't do a damn thing to stop anything. People will get a high capacity magazine if they really want one, and it only forces us law-abiding citizens to pay upwards of 30 dollars a magazine in order to get ones that are preban.

Just because I have access to high capacity magazines doesn't mean I'm going to be committing a crime with them.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Fine then explain to me why a SAW should be illegal but an assault rifle with a drug shouldn't be. airshocker

Simply because cops don't have machine guns, neither should the populace.

As for the issue of magazines(I'm assuming you're referring to a drum magazine), I have less of an issue with high capacity drum magazines being banned than I do with the standard 30 round ones being banned. New York bans all 30 round magazines that were made after 1992. I think that's ridiculous and doesn't do a damn thing to stop anything. People will get a high capacity magazine if they really want one, and it only forces us law-abiding citizens to pay upwards of 30 dollars a magazine in order to get ones that are preban.

Just because I have access to high capacity magazines doesn't mean I'm going to be committing a crime with them.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Fine then explain to me why a SAW should be illegal but an assault rifle with a drug shouldn't be. airshocker

Simply because cops don't have machine guns, neither should the populace.

As for the issue of magazines(I'm assuming you're referring to a drum magazine), I have less of an issue with high capacity drum magazines being banned than I do with the standard 30 round ones being banned. New York bans all 30 round magazines that were made after 1992. I think that's ridiculous and doesn't do a damn thing to stop anything. People will get a high capacity magazine if they really want one, and it only forces us law-abiding citizens to pay upwards of 30 dollars a magazine in order to get ones that are preban.

Just because I have access to high capacity magazines doesn't mean I'm going to be committing a crime with them.

What's the difference between an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine and a SAW that shoot the same caliber round?

So you wouldn't mind if assault rifle magazines were limited to 30 rounds for civilian use?

Where's your calls to ban cars, then? Hypocrite.

Logistically there is no way to dearm a population of 300+ million without missing things and leaving a huge black market in it's wake. It is IMPOSSIBLE. Not to mention cops would refuse such orders, and those who actually defend the constitution(our troops) might as well.

You are a fascist.

airshocker