Originally Posted by Odin

That's why you restrict the size of the ammo clips. If you need a 30-round clip while hunting, you such at hunting.

Most states already do. Generally speaking no more than 5 round magazines are allowed for hunting, but of course hunting isn't the only reason for owning a firearm.

But seriously what do you think restricting magazine size is going to do other than make folks like me an awful lot of money when you turn our surplus $10 magazines into $100 magazines? Hell I've got a whole bag of AR-15 magazines in the closet that just need to be cleaned up.

Originally Posted by Kepi

So categorically, the assault weapons ban did pretty much nothing, would continue to do nothing, and it's pretty much the 1986 law that has any teeth at all. However, an outright semi-automatic weapon ban woyld pretty much be logistically impossible because of just how many weapons use it. Congratulations war on drugs mentality.

Hey, liberals doing things to make themselves look good and feel powerful is worth the billions that would be spent on nothing.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Most states already do. Generally speaking no more than 5 round magazines are allowed for hunting, but of course hunting isn't the only reason for owning a firearm.

Yeah, there's the other reasons, like going out and venting your frustrations out on 20 innocent school children.

But seriously what do you think restricting magazine size is going to do other than make folks like me an awful lot of money when you turn our surplus $10 magazines into $100 magazines? Hell I've got a whole bag of AR-15 magazines in the closet that just need to be cleaned up.

Make money while you can. You may not have much time.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

There is no such thing as an assault rifle. It's a political euphemism. The term is fabricated, conjured and manufactured by those with an agenda.

Yeah, the agenda to stop the killings of thousands of innocent people with these useless weapons.

Originally Posted by Odin

That's why you restrict the size of the ammo clips. If you need a 30-round clip while hunting, you such at hunting.

Most states have a magazine limit. Personally, I don't see what difference it makes, because if I've got 1 30 round mag or 6 5 round mags, I've still got 30 bullets. Infact, the 30 round mag just means it's more likely to jam. Reloading doesn't take much time at all.

In terms of stopping spree shootings, this is more or less a null point, because it's premeditated and planned. Waiting periods won't help, criminal background checks won't help, limits on mag capacity won't help. They all just delay the inevitable, and it is inevitable because with all the legislation in the world someone who really wants a gun is still going to get one, even if they have to build it themselves. They're not going to calm down or cool off, because these are not crimes of passion.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yeah, the agenda to stop the killings of thousands of innocent people with these useless weapons.

Eric these weapons are not useless, that is why people like to keep them around even if you choose not to do so.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yeah, the agenda to stop the killings of thousands of innocent people with these useless weapons.

So you say. I say the agenda is for government to have the monopoly on firearms, giving them the ability to kill thousands of innocent people without the threat of returned fire. This is the agenda you yourself have stated that you support Eric.

Originally Posted by Galen

Eric these weapons are not useless, that is why people like to keep them around even if you choose not to do so.

Useful for what beneficial purpose? I can see them as ueful for shooting lots of folks iwthout having to reload. Other than that, they seem to have no use ... and the one use they serve should not serve anyone not in the miltary ... or possibly, SWAT.

What use do you have for them?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

So you say. I say the agenda is for government to have the monopoly on firearms, giving them the ability to kill thousands of innocent people without the threat of returned fire. This is the agenda you yourself have stated that you support Eric.

So, you want the option of being an armed revolutinary then. That explains a lot.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

So, you want the option of being an armed revolutinary then. That explains a lot.

There has been a lot of talk since the Newtown massacre to try to keep guns out of the hands of mentally disturbed people. This is all well and good, but there has to be some criteria as to who fits that category. Perhaps a psychiatric exam prior to purchase. After all, if we can require background and drug checks for even insignificant employment such as for dishwasher, certainly we can do this for gun purchases. Anyone who owns a firearm ought to be alert to the potential dangers, just as much as when driving a car. In Chicago there was an increase in murders to 506 last year, and already three in the new year.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

So, you want the option of being an armed revolutinary then. That explains a lot.

I want the option of being able to defend myself and my loved ones from those that would seek to do harm. If imagining other reasoning and terminology that better fits your narrow view of the world helps you get through your day then go for it I guess.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

I want the option of being able to defend myself and my loved ones from those that would seek to do harm. If imagining other reasoning and terminology that better fits your narrow view of the world helps you get through your day then go for it I guess.

That' not what you wrote. You wrote, "I say the (liberal) agenda is for government to have the monopoly on firearms, giving them the ability to kill thousands of innocent people without the threat of returned fire." Now, this may be important in some other country, but is it even a remote possibilty here ... unless the initiator of hostilities is the not-governemnt?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

That' not what you wrote. You wrote, "I say the (liberal) agenda is for government to have the monopoly on firearms, giving them the ability to kill thousands of innocent people without the threat of returned fire." Now, this may be important in some other country, but is it even a remote possibilty here ... unless the initiator of hostilities is the not-governemnt?

Like I said, if you need to imagine things that fit your narrow world view... I never said liberal, I said the agenda. I said this because it is the agenda. As for the rest, not only is it a possibility, it actually happens... Like, a lot.

While I understand that you still have a need to hold onto the quaint liberals versus conservatives wubby, you should understand that some of us outgrew those early childhood objects a long time ago (soft and warm as they may be) and have moved on to more adult concepts.

The persons who were killed are not greatly concerned with the "official" description of the weapon that killed them. If they were alive today, they might want to have a "Buzz Aldrin" style discussion with those who argue over such trivia.

This reminds me of the discussions about what constitutes a 4T war. The Russians killed in the Great Patriotic War, for example, are considered by some to have not died in a 4T. They are, however, just as dead, in the millions, and it was a 4T for most of the combatant nations.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

So, you want the option of being an armed revolutinary then. That explains a lot.

He's gotta shoot down those UN black helicopters full of union thugs who will take him away to a FEMA concentration camp, don'tcha know? :eyes:

Originally Posted by Copperfield

I want the option of being able to defend myself and my loved ones from those that would seek to do harm. If imagining other reasoning and terminology that better fits your narrow view of the world helps you get through your day then go for it I guess.

That option is highly unlikely to be closed to you. It will also be highly unlikely that if you should be killed by your own weapons, or do foolish things with them, that you will be lionized for doing so (see: Schadenfruede, also, Dick Cheney)...

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Like I said, if you need to imagine things that fit your narrow world view... I never said liberal, I said the agenda. I said this because it is the agenda. As for the rest, not only is it a possibility, it actually happens... Like, a lot.

While I understand that you still have a need to hold onto the quaint liberals versus conservatives wubby, you should understand that some of us outgrew those early childhood objects a long time ago (soft and warm as they may be) and have moved on to more adult concepts.

You prefer an armed citizenry with the firepower of soldiers, then whine when the police take that into account. FWIW, I would never be a SWAT team member, but I can appreciate their concerns for staying alive. Perhaps that mentality would be less in evidence if it was less necessary.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I'd add that turning folks against each other over such nonsensical distinctions as "liberal vs conservative" is also part of The Agenda.
And it's working. Really well.

Oh yes! Let's use buzz words, and pretend they mean something other than their generally accepted meaning. "Agenda" in that context is not hard to define, anymore than the same word used by a liberal talking about the Tea Party. Same word; different meaning; still well defined.

Originally Posted by Odin

He's gotta shoot down those UN black helicopters full of union thugs who will take him away to a FEMA concentration camp, don'tcha know? :eyes:

I see Odin has his wubby out too.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Oh yes! Let's use buzz words, and pretend they mean something other than their generally accepted meaning. "Agenda" in that context is not hard to define, anymore than the same word used by a liberal talking about the Tea Party. Same word; different meaning; still well defined.

Which meaning of agenda did you mean? I meant this one.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You prefer an armed citizenry with the firepower of soldiers, then whine when the police take that into account. FWIW, I would never be a SWAT team member, but I can appreciate their concerns for staying alive. Perhaps that mentality would be less in evidence if it was less necessary.

Yes, I always "whine" when police break into the wrong house and murder harmless, unarmed folk. It's one of my idiosyncrasies.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I'd add that turning folks against each other over such nonsensical distinctions as "liberal vs conservative" is also part of The Agenda.
And it's working. Really well.

For liberals and conservatives today, the distinctions or "battles" between "liberal and conservative" mean a lot. If you are not yourself a liberal or conservative, you might not relate to those terms, or to those folks who are being "turned against each other" along those lines. Since libertarians (among others) are neither liberal nor conservative, they cannot identify with either term. However, that does not mean the terms are meaningless for those who do identify as liberal or conservative. They are meaningful to us, if not to you, and we don't look upon them as signifying merely an "agenda imposed by the authorities," but as a real difference of opinion among the people concerning the priorities of our country and government.

It helps to keep in mind the Libertarian Party's own map of the political terms and their meanings, and give due recognition to the various opinions.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

I want the option of being able to defend myself and my loved ones from those that would seek to do harm. If imagining other reasoning and terminology that better fits your narrow view of the world helps you get through your day then go for it I guess.

The problem is that no-one who has weapons can be trusted any more than the government can be trusted. In fact, they are less to be trusted, because those in the government who have weapons are tasked with and paid for the specific job of protecting everyone within their jurisdiction.

Others also have the purpose of being armed to defend themselves against the government, which is in fact becoming an armed revolutionary like the Black Panthers were. And it also makes you in like manner a target for the government and the police. If your purpose for having firearms includes this, copperfield, then you are an armed revolutionary and a target.

I say the agenda is for government to have the monopoly on firearms, giving them the ability to kill thousands of innocent people without the threat of returned fire. This is the agenda you yourself have stated that you support Eric.

Yes, but I also support the idea that such government(s) and their enforcers should be overseen and paid for by the people, including review boards with real power to investigate incidents and fire those who use weapons against the people unjustly. It does happen, I agree. The police forces work for the people. If they do not do their job properly, they can and should be fired or put in jail for crimes. Any policeman has, as an incentive, the requirement that they do their job properly if they want to keep it, which does not include shooting innocent people. An armed individual has no such incentives or requirements, beyond the law itself which applies to all.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Yes, I always "whine" when police break into the wrong house and murder harmless, unarmed folk. It's one of my idiosyncrasies.

OK, I can buy them doing a forced entry, but I'll be waiting for your example of them murdering "harmless, unarmed folks".

Originally Posted by The Rani

I think he's Blaming the Victim(s) i.e. The Citizenry.

You know, there are other places to live than here. There's no need to live in a police state, if that's how you see the US. Then again, if you think any government is too intrusive, you may need to consider the irrational nature of your fears, or your ties to your fellow humans.

Alaska is still pretty empty.