{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/28/2019 6:49:36 PM
25
I'm fine with a few reasonable limits on full-auto weapons (including bump stocks), weapons of extreme destructive potential, and huge magazines (police pistols have 15 or so bullets, soldiers have 30; civilians don't need 100). Problem is, we have trench warfare. If we set magazines at 15, the gun control crowd will go for 10, then 8, etc. If we ban sawed off shotguns, then the gun haters will go after pump actions or autos. I might support reasonable limits, but I'm virulently opposed to a government with absolute power. And if the people are disarmed, that's what you get.
English
-
And and when guns get banned, what’s to stop the criminals from using bows, crossbows, knives, etc? Heck, not too long ago someone used a crossbow for murder.
-
Criminals won't have to use bows, knives, or crossbows. They'll just keep using guns. And they won't have armed citizens ruining their fun.
-
I’m just using it as a point that taking away guns isn’t going to solve anything.
-
The problem with any kinds of limits is, one like you said the anti-gun people will keep pushing lines. But also criminals don’t listen to laws, they will begin to make their own magazines if they really want them.
-
True, but we're not committing crimes. We're interested in defending ourselves. And we rarely need more than 15 or so bullets for that.
-
Yes, I was just trying to point out that the only thing that you hurt is the law abiding citizens. Look what happens when we illegalized drugs, people who did drugs, still got them[spoiler]please note that banning drugs is not 100% related, due to the fact we were talking about law abiding citizens. I was pointing out that criminals don’t follow laws[/spoiler]
-
Banning drugs is doing what it's supposed to do, strongly discouraging the use of drugs. If we legalized them, the economy would crash: drugs are too destructive; they turn productive citizens into unproductive human wreckage. If drugs were legal, then instead of having to care for a small percentage of addicts, we would have to care for a huge percentage of addicts. Given the price involved in caring for an addict, we'd bankrupt ourselves very quickly. The only way drughs could be legal is if we made all tax-funded assistance for them illegal: if you use drugs and you get addicted, you're on your own, and if you die in the street because no one will care for you, too bad. Because our basically compassionate nature can't handle this, and because destroying our economy is suicidal, having drugs remain illegal is the least of three evils.
-
Edited by Rosenburg: 7/28/2019 5:44:40 PMTell that to Oklahoma, they passed legalized drugs and now there is a Pot shop on almost every street in my small town
-
Let me clarify: HARD drugs. Pot should have been legalized long ago. It's really not much we worse than alcohol or tobacco. Stuff like crank, horse, and coke need to remain illegal.
-
Ok, I disagree but it makes a little more sense
-
Visit a methadone clinic, and see all the people in wheelchairs, on walkers, and looking a quarter century older than they are. Hard drugs destroy people. Unless we're ready to let their victims die in the street (and we're not), we cannot tolerate their legalization. It's been tried elsewhere, and failed.
-
I meant just the opposite. I think that we shouldn’t have Pot Brownies handed out near high schools or have such easy access w/o real regulation
-
Ah. We've had it legal in Washington state for awhile now. You have to be 21 to buy it. It hasn't caused any real problems.
-
I get that, I just think my town is doing a horrible job of regulating
-
In understand, drugs was a bad example, I wasn’t saying legalize them earlier. I was just pointing out that some people still do drugs.
-
Yes. But most legitimate functions of privately owned guns (hunting, target shooting, and self-defense) don't require more than 10 or 15 bullets in the magazine. So, settling a 15-round limit wouldn't affect the good guys that much. But it would hopefully stymie the efforts of a mass shooter, since they need the ability to fire large numbers of bullets without reloading.
-
Yep. Which is why I'm against all gun laws.. Because they don't compromise. They want everything taken.
-
Errrr, no. That's just incredibly bad.
-
Nope.
-
Yes. 10 yr old not being able to buy guns - Good.
-
I agree Full auto weapons and huge magazines aren't necessary.
-
Sawed off shotguns are illegal. Bumpstocks have already been banned. Magazine sizes would not matter to someone with the intent to kill who knows basic gun operating procedure. When you give ground more is expected to follow, it doesn't stop.
-
There's actually a loophole that allows ownership of short-barreled shotguns, withiut the ATF permit. Don't know how Mossberg did it, but they've got this gun called the Shockwave, it's totally legal.
-
Edited by Numero Uno: 6/28/2019 9:13:16 PMIt is only legal if the weapon comes from the manufacture in that way, Mosseburg's is the exception because it uses a birdshead pistol-grip minus a stock therefore they bypass shotgun regulation.
-
It's very clever, how they did it. Just as bumpstocks were a way to bypass the rule against full-auto wepons (which had been banned for 80+ years), and "handguards" make it possible to have a short-barreled rifle-like weapon (I'm OK with the latter, and I actually own a Shockwave. Bump stocks I won't miss)
