If law enforcement are legally responsible for every time they fire a gun, what's the big deal with qualified immunity? What happened to these cops? https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/empir...ypd-gunfire-wounded-victims/story?id=17078377
wrong as usual. I don't carry (except a good blade) all that much-true I have a gun in a lock box in my car and one in each of the three areas of my house I am usually in.
Absolutely not a damn thing but the further erosion of our second amendment rights. They're not willing to give up a damn thing in order to ask someone else to do the same.
Scumbags attack other scumbags. I care more about people who just want to live their life without the threat of guns. Not everyone believes guns are Talisman.
well there are civilian police-FBI, DEA, USMS, IRS CID, Postal Inspectors, city police, county sheriff's office, state highway patrol etc. Officers who operate in a civilian environment under civilian laws of engagement enforcing state and local laws, or the United States Code. Military police include Army, Navy, Marine, USAF MPs. and related law enforcement under the UCMJ.
you want to disarm the people least likely to harm others while pushing laws that almost never disarm violent felons. Are you going to tell me at what point does a magazine limit violate the Second Amendment?
Openly admitting that you had one of these weapons that you now think no one else should have. There's plenty of reasons for civilians to have magazines of whatever they choose and the first one of those is called the second amendment. You speak of "compromise"... This implies that there is some give and take going on. So if Republicans decided to "compromise" with Democrats on the so-called large capacity magazines.... What exactly are Democrats willing to concede in return? Let me guess.... We will lay off trying to ban the rest of your guns until the next time a mass shooting happens with a normal capacity semi-automatic and then we will say that these are the demon and ban those too!!!
Fairly, I have an office, a bedroom and a family room I spend most of my time in. I also have a large barn that I play table tennis in, shoot archery in, store farm equipment in and it has a few safes. I have my shotgun sports safe, I have my speed shooting gear safe and I have one full of stuff I don't use anymore-often guns I won shooting professionally
The shooter in Nashville fired 152 shots in fourteen minutes. I could do that with an over and under shotgun. The shooter at Pulse had over two hours to shoot people. Shooters don't blast away at max cyclic rate. Magazine capacity isn't a factor I'm virtually any mass shooting. What if a 10 round capacity limit isn't enough? The Parkland shooter just had ten round magazines. We know that if a shooter using 10 round magazines shot up a school that GCAs would seek to reduce the limit from 10 rounds. We've already seen that happen. The New York SAFE Act had a 7 round limit. Oregon's SB 501 proposed a five round limit. Gun control advocates aren't trustworthy enough to hold to a compromise. You should look up the status of Duncan v Bonta.
Well you said assault weapon like it's really a thing and not propaganda. So already your knowledge is suspect We've given enough inches and you have taken more and more. There's no such thing as a large capacity magazine that is much like the term assault weapon. Doubt. It's just a rifle. The hysterical church lady crap doesn't convince anybody. Too bad. You can't ban an arm based on some arbitrary limit you dream up. It's based on whether the arm is common and used for a lawful purpose. Owning standard magazines doesn't cause mass shootings. And further if the magazine wasn't legally owned would the victims be less dead?
Interesting that you would cite a 10-year-old article, but okay. This incident proves, that if trained cops can contribute to the injuries, what the hell makes anyone think that any yahoo with a gun would do better? This entire bullshit fantasy of having an even more armed population would make us "safer" is beyond ridiculous. There's somewhere upwards 400 to 500 million weapons in this country, 40x more than any other nation. If that myth had any iota of reality on a mass scale, we would be the safest country in the world.
Why don't we just make laws that make it illegal to shoot people for no good reason? Oh that's right..... We already do... So why don't we simply start by enforcing existing laws that criminals are already ignoring instead of coming up with a bunch of new laws that criminals will continue to ignore and that will only serve to burden those who are law-abiding and enjoying their second amendment rights. No... Let's just make guns illegal and no one will get shot anymore because that's how we stop people from taking drugs! Until Democrats start advocating that we studiously enforce the existing gun laws I don't want to hear about any new laws that aren't going to do anything but burden legal owners. But what I just said is actually logical so that means it's antithema to elected Democrat lawmakers and those who elect them and support them.
Because we don't see these kinds of collateral damage from citizens intervening. If only lawful armed citizens hung out in the same neighborhood scumbags, or were allowed to carry in gun free zones.
Sorry. I've heard it all before. To borrow a phrase, don't let perfection be the enemy of good. But to say that gun control advocates aren't trustworthy, when you guys cannot even acknowledge you are not contributing a solution, except of course for even less regulation? I'm sorry, but that is nuts, as in Gun Nuts. Gun owners who have fallen hook-line-and-sinker to the NRA propaganda seem to forget that this is a modern problem in America. We didn't have these issues in the past for the most part. If you cannot acknowledge the problems, then you guys are cementing your fate as THE problem.
again-gun banners hate the NRA and honest gun owners and pretend its about criminals. Yet their entire rhetoric is spewing hate told the NRA. The problem in the USA is mainly felons with guns-the very people gun banners want or at least know, will remain armed if their schemes are implemented
This blue antigun discussion makes me so happy I retired to a state where we have "CONSTUTIONAL CARRY". Any legal gun owner can carry open or concealed without all the blue state silliness of permits, registration, waiting periods, magazine capacity limitations, etc. We can spend our time doing more constructive things than discussing limitations on freedom. TEXAS!!!! WHEARE FREEDOM LIVES!!!
Slippery slope acknowledged. Define "solution". Quantify "solution". We didn't have these "problems" in the past. In the past we could buy machine guns at nearly the same price as standard rifles. Magazine capacity wasn't an issue. We've had magazine fed semiautomatic rifles since 1905. We had AR-15s for 48 years before the first mass shooting by a civilian using one. What changed?
