raydawg wrote on 10/04/17 at 14:13:18:

Well my observation was geared in trying to find out what the criteria is to the gun control argument.   As yet, I have no one offering any reply, one way or the other.   In a sense the void of dialogue is leading to much misconceptions perhaps?

“…As yet, I have no one offering any reply, one way or the other…”

Here is one  P.O.V.   on a  ‘piece’.

Banning Hi Cap  Mags:

Do this.  Two Skilled People with firearms.
Each person has a 100 targets,    (Person Shaped).
The 100 targets are set out, 20 to 100 yards away.
And 50 Yards wide.  All varying distances.

Each, ’set’,  of 100, is the same for both shooters.

Now, One shooter has a Semi-Auto, Hand gun.
Or a AR-15,  Type Semi-Auto rifle.
(Described as a,  ‘Assault Rifle’, cause it is, Black,  By the un-knowing  Media, and,  ‘Gun Banners’.  Yet it functions EXACTLY  the same, as the First, ’Successful’ one made in 1905)
They have a  100 round clip. (Not possible in handgun, could be in rifle, but, 78% of the time, not totally reliable)
But for the sake of this is, ‘experiment’, lets say they have, and they work.
  (Removes the pesky need to take out and insert, another 20-30-40 round one.)
That is one shot per pull and release of trigger.

The other shooter, has a,  Single Shot, 12g  Shotgun.
That is, A shot is fired, the gun is, ‘broke’, the hull removed, and a new shell is inserted and fired.

Who, will put a projectile, on all the targets,  the fastest ?

The Single shot Shotgun,  Shooting #4 Buck,  (27 Pellets 2-2/3”  3”  35 Pellets,  3-1/2” 44 pellets)
Because each shot, they hit  Many  Multiple targets.
where the Semi-Auto, needs to put one projectile on each target.

(.223/5.65 Nato  = projectile of .224 dia
   one shot one projectile.
 #4 Buck =  projectile dia of .240)
   one shot, 27 - 35 - 44, projectiles.

(Some may say, Oh but the .223 is going SO  Much Faster.
 Guess what, a hit in a vital area, dead is dead.
 and a not vital area, the fast hard  projectile will just pass through,
where the lead ball will, ‘dump’ all it’s, FPE, (Foot Pounds of Energy) in the target)

Gee, what did the, ’Tunnel Rats’,  use ?

Thanks that the,  DFI, Nut Case, shooters, do NOT, know firearms.

So their is one POV, of how,  ‘Banning’, a capacity of a magazine/clip’s rounds.
it such a totally worthless idea.

A Person had a 12 round mag in his/her handgun,
and SAVED  a Bunch of People,
and the, ‘law’, was 10 rounds.
That,  ’person’, would be brought up on charges.

“… offering any reply, one way or the other….”

Here is another,  (Shorter)
 A, ‘Fully-Auto’,  (Which was  NOT USED IN VEGAS),
Have been  totally  relegated, since 1934.
and their has been what  2 or 3, people shooting them at other people ???????

And  NO, one can NOT, have a,  ‘Drop In Part’, to make any firearm a  full-auto.
The firearm has to be extensively, machined.
    (Totally  Despite what some, ‘Hollywood’, shows depict, and the HRC’s  Parrot)
The, ‘Other’ way. Oh Yea,  just change some internal parts.

So someone,  picks up one in a trunk of a car, on a dark back ally.
Yep, could/probably,  does happen.
 Oh, BTY, how is that, ‘War On Drugs’, going ?

(Their may be more, after I get my wood moved from the cut/split outside pile, to the the shed. So I can start on, Next years wood.)

It is a,  “RIGHT’,  Not a, ‘privilege’.

‘Rights’, can be taken away,
 (*If you are a  DFI, or do something to loose them)

‘Privileges’, are, Granted,  by a governing power.

Saying owning a firearm is a, ‘privilege’,  
just  Plays into the hand, of a, ‘Government’,
who’s ‘goal’, is make you, ‘believe’,
      a, ‘RIGHT”, is a, ‘privilege’.

 While I don't believe a "Government" especially ours can effectively work together to change millions of people's definition of a term, I do believe your definition of Right vs. Privilege is more clear than mine.

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 10/05/17 at 20:11:22:


 We have a right to life.  

 Pursuit of happiness.  I was once told by a serial pedophile that "An untouched blonde is the pursuit of happiness."  I'm ok revoking that guys "right".

 From an incarceration view inmates have their rights "limited" but not "removed", for instance inmates can not carry firearms in prison but some can once they are released.

What is a "universal background check" vs. a regular background check?

Eegore wrote on 10/06/17 at 08:03:12:




I realized my error not long after I so wistfully pondered the question.

We do have a Right to Life.
And bad behaviour can get it permanently revoked.

raydawg wrote on 10/06/17 at 08:47:37:

"... If you are a law abiding gun owner, well, if I am inconvenienced by having to drive through a sobriety checkpoint, knowing it might keep a person alive this night, I am willing to do that, soberly ..."   

 

This  I Disagree with,  
 Who was that, that said, very long ago:
 (To Paraphrase)
"If you give up a freedom, for the sake of security, you will have neither".

 

verslagen1 wrote on 10/06/17 at 10:11:43:

What is a "universal background check" vs. a regular background check?

I also wonder ?

I would think a, ‘Background’ check is a, ‘background’, check.    

Like if your a  Felon,  
 Committed a Crime of Violence,
   Had a Restraining order issued against you,
      Been Committed,
        Determined Mentally Ill, or unstable.
Which the CURRENT,  ‘Background Check’, IS !

The, term,  ‘Universal’, and the terms, ‘Complete’,  ‘A’, ‘Full’,
Are they a way, to, SCARE,  someone, into, ‘Believing’,
               what H.R.C., and the last POTUS, has Said.  ???????

Good intentions.
You're going the wrong way.
The requirements are fine, now.
So many places will get the
Grand Security of the airports now.
Adding to the costs, diminishing the experience. And the Dumbmasses will bleat their appreciation.
What happened won't happen again. Not like that. I have been expecting an attack on a sporting event for years..
It won't be long till normal people will be unable to enjoy going anywhere that is crowded. Security   will be t intrusive.
Embrace fear, beg for security, live in the comfort of feeling safe, because you gave up freedom.