I have never owned a gun, but I have hunted and used my father's guns throughout my childhood. I learned how to shoot when I was less than 10 years old with a .22 rifle and loved the challenge of hitting a target 50 yards away. I hunted several times, but didn't really like it outside of being with my dad. I don't own a gun now because I don't feel a need to and it would essentially be illegal for me to do so in Chicago (10 people shot this weekend). I might get a shotgun if I lived in a rural area far from any police support.

I'm on the side of what you call gun nuts because I believe in the individual freedom to make a choice on how to protect their homes and family.

I don't read nazi propaganda and don't intend to yet I support their right to produce and distribute that propaganda. And all that despite the fact that the first amendment was written by old white slave owner frontiersmen 200 some odd years ago.

ok ty

K, bye.

I love how all the gun nuts think that anyone talking about the possibility that guns might be the problem is completely, 100%, anti-gun.


You have been very adamant that these shooters are just crazy and are not motivated otherwise. I would love to hear why you are so staunch about this idea.

Freedom of speech does not equal freedom to own guns. These are very different concepts. Furthermore, one is explicitly allowed by those old white slave owners and the other is not.

This is a very confused post.

Protect against what exactly?

The gun fans itt always deflect by saying something like "You think a Dermex GRB-17 with Cranimulite .357 lightning rounds could actually fire 4 rounds per second?!?!?!? LOL noob, Craniumlitle roundS were banned in 1973 and they would never fire four per second. And they were never available in metallic mint green!!!!! You're thinking of the Dermex GRB-17subA, dip****. I LOVE GUNS THAT BOOM BOOM!!!!"

So, let's say a hypothetical gun fires 5 rounds per second. Why should that gun be legal?

The 'world' in the most general way possible.

To give you a quick education, a bolt action is tons more accurate than an AR platform, and the bolt action round is likely going to be more deadly.

I mean sure, maybe he brought a bolt action .22, but the reality is that it's probably going to be a 30-06 or a 7MM or something much more deadly than a 223 round.

Also, a major place you guys screw up is using Wiki to look up this kind of info, or going with manufacturers specs, which show what a trained operator can accomplish with that weapon.

Your average Joe probably isn't going to be a ton more efficient with an AR than with a rifle, although they'll probably be slightly more efficient.

Why?

vs.

The first is very clear in protecting freedom of speech. The second seems to be unclear on whether only a "Militia" can bear arms, or is that referring to everyone? People have debated this for forever, I don't know how you can call it as clear as the line about freedom of speech.

Sigh, pvn is saying he's protecting the rights of others because it's their right, even if he doesn't choose to believe in what they're saying or doing.

A plot graph a ways up the thread showed massive difference in gun ownership by household, which corresponded to the laws in force, and huge disparities in murder rate. So the laws have some effect.

Yes, I know. My point is he thinks it's their right because he interprets the 2nd Amendment in a particular way. Everyone agrees on the 1st Amendment interpretation, but not on the 2nd. You can't draw a comparison here because it's not a clear right.

It would be like saying I support freedom of speech, therefore I support your right to be a pedophile, even though I disagree with it.

Well, there's not much to say other than no to all of this, you've just completely misunderstood the point and gotten caught up in a silly semantic debate about the second amendment. Which, of course, was decided by the supreme court.

Are the 5/s accurate? Are they accomplished with 5 distinct trigger pulls or 1 single trigger pull?

Accuracy matters when you're discussing rounds/min.

I can make a revolver or even a pump shotgun go bang 5/s if my only objective is to make the gun go bang and not be concerned about hitting a target.

That's interesting. So gun nuts make fun of normal people for "being afraid of the big scary gunz", yet they justify their gun nuttery with their fear of "the world".

BREAKING NEWS: US Government orders immediate surrender of all privately owned firearms and ammunition.



















....and thennnnn?

The fact that individualism is the actual topic here is obviously unimportant with your super sick internetz burnz.

And then the 4th Amendment disappears I'm sure.

I just don't see a large number of people heading down and handing them over.

You two both know I'm not talking about practice ammunition but about the standard rounds that tumble and fragment on impact because that's what they're supposed to do. You gain nothing in the conversation by pretending I'm talking about something having absolutely no relevance to either the tragedy in Connecticut or the point I'm making.

If you want to argue that people own AR-15s in order to use frangible rounds, go for it.

A lot of similar people refused to let blacks integrate into public schools as well. They were eventually dealt with and now are looked at as being on the wrong side of history.

People own guns for a lot of reasons. Investment, sport, recreation, self defense, home defense, collectors.

I met a man the other day who owns over 600 guns, many worth several thousand $'s, and he came to me the other day because he wanted to fire a couple and had never fired a gun before.

He wasn't even really sure how to go about finding the ammo he'd need, or which ones were safe to fire. He just liked the way they looked.

What were you saying again?

Oh got it. Investment, sport, recreation.

Assume they are quite accurate.