- Oct 30, 2007
This is a classic slippery slope. Let’s not argue about only allowing bolt-action and primitive firearms. No one has suggested that. Why does anyone need an AR-15 or extended magazines? Has anyone on this board ever needed more than 10 rounds in a handgun? I don’t see the justification.
1. Are you okay with AR-15's as long as they're limited to 10 round magazines?
2. Are you aware that it takes around 1.5 seconds to reload an AR-15 or similar weapon?
3. Do you believe that all semi-automatic rifles that accept magazines should automatically become "assault" rifles simply by adding an accessory like a pistol grip?
The deadliest school shooting in the history of our country was perpetrated with 2 common handguns. Banning scary looking "assault" rifles won't stop mass shooting, it will only cause the shooters to choose different weapons. That's why I believe that the far left won't be satisfied until nothing other than bolt action and primitive firearms are legal to own.
Highly trained professionals hit their target about 30% of the time, and it typically takes more than one bullet to bring someone down. You can do the math. A high capacity magazine could obviously be a necessity for any law abiding citizen that's attacked by more than one person. A 10 round capacity isn't that big of a deal for a mass shooter wearing a tactical vest, but it is a big deal for someone asleep in their home during a break in.
I'm all for common sense reform. We need strong background checks. We need to find a way to keep guns out of the hands of anyone that's been deemed by a medical professional to be a danger to themselves or others. We need to take a hard look at how we deal with mental illness in our country. And we need to stop making mass shooters famous. We shouldn't ever release their names. But what we don't need to do is chip away at the 2nd Amendment by making more and more weapons illegal to own.
- Show all