I say i want X really mean Y because my son suggested it

[insertNameHere]

I was a little scared at the gun store today because a woman came in looking for a 22lr since that is what her son has an he likes it and thinks it would be good and simple for her. The owner points out the three guns currently instock that take 22lr. She was like no those are to big I don't want a gun that shoots big bullets I want one that shoots 22LRs Smith and Wesson makes one. But I think i want a revolver since he said those are simpler and it needs a red dot.

She kept asking why the one gun was called by an insect name instead of what ti was and wouldn't listen to the explanation before doing OH look shiny and but why is it that one called insect name

At this point the owners wife is stepping in to find out her background because she clearly has no business buying a firearm without receiving familiarization with weapons. Along with pushing for the heavy duty mace as an alternative that will be more effective for the type and situations of personal protection the woman was searching for. However all attempts got met with well my son told me and standard SC behavior of not gonna listen to reason. She ended up walking out because they clearly didn't know what they were doing

[crashhelmet]

What were they showing her that was too big? The gun or the actual 22lr round?

By "insect name" are you referring to the SIG Mosquito? That may appear to be too big or fire "big bullets" but the thing is extremely light. Only about 1.5lbs, fully loaded IIRC

[gremcint]

I'm just going to say it. I hate the second ammendment, I despise it. And the person in the OP is why. It is easier to get a gun than to get a driver's license. That is just wrong.

To own a gun you should have a license for it that is kept up to date, it should be locked away properly and you should be required to take a training course in how to properly use and care for your gun, further if you misuse your gun at all then you get it taken away like a license.

And as for those nutballs, what the hell do you need 15 rifles for? what do you need a machine gun for? don't tell me it's for hunting it's because you're a paranoid fucknut. Yes their are antique collectors blah blah blah but really come on?

Then there comes the walking brain dead like the op, oh god in one conversation you have proven why you should not even be allowed near gun.

[Greenday]

I'm just going to say it. I hate the second ammendment, I despise it. And the person in the OP is why. It is easier to get a gun than to get a driver's license. That is just wrong.

At times, I hate the first amendment. But just like the second amendment, it has its purpose. I think a lot of people tend to abuse the shit out of the first amendment.

[daleduke17]

I'm just going to say it. I hate the second ammendment, I despise it. And the person in the OP is why. It is easier to get a gun than to get a driver's license. That is just wrong.

Come to Illinois. You have to get a "license" (Firearm Owner Identification Card - FOID card) and pass an Illinois State Police background check.

it should be locked away properly and you should be required to take a training course in how to properly use and care for your gun, further if you misuse your gun at all then you get it taken away like a license.

I don't disagree with locking it away when it isn't being used or the training course. Getting a gun taken away after misuse already occurs.

And as for those nutballs, what the hell do you need 15 rifles for? what do you need a machine gun for? don't tell me it's for hunting it's because you're a paranoid fucknut. Yes their are antique collectors blah blah blah but really come on?

Why do people need 15 swords, 15 cars, every season of Doctor Who on DVD/VHS, etc? Because they want to. For hunting, it is completely valid. just like having multiple screwdrivers in a tool chest, because different types of game require different types of guns and ammunition.

Then there comes the walking brain dead like the op, oh god in one conversation you have proven why you should not even be allowed near gun.

Yes, that lady was an idiot.

[insertNameHere]

At times, I hate the first amendment. But just like the second amendment, it has its purpose. I think a lot of people tend to abuse the shit out of the first amendment.

And mainly of those people use it to bitch about other people's rights. I really don't care if my owning multiple guns makes people uneasy because frankly a lot of the things that some people say make me uneasy but it is their right and we should just leave it at that. I mean really how would the media like it if we revised the 1st amendment to cover only certain types of speech.

I don't like the idea of needing a license to exercise any unalienable rights it defeats the purpose. I do support people like the woman i mentioned making an effort to be educated before making a purchase. We already have enough bullshit laws that are selectively enforced by add more confusion to the mix.

I also don't like the requirement of having to lock away guns in a sense more than one deems necessary. When I have children they will know i have guns they will also know not to touch them when im not around but will be trained to use them. I grew up in the household of a police officer i knew better than to screw with my dads guns. Most of our society's perceived problems with objects and entertainment come from shitty parenting.

Also, I should note the shop I deal with regularly avoids selling to undesirable gun owners such as the woman from the OP regardless of if they can pass the background check.

[crashhelmet]

I mean really how would the media like it if we revised the 1st amendment to cover only certain types of speech.

To quote George Carlin and Lenny bruce
"Cocksucker, cunt, fuck, motherfucker, piss, shit, tits."

Say any of those on network television and see how far your First Amendment Right to Free Speech goes.

Yell Fire in a crowded theater.

Call a cop an asshole

Say that you think someone should assassinate the President.

Do you still have your First Amendment right to Free Speech?

I don't like the idea of needing a license to exercise any unalienable rights it defeats the purpose. I do support people like the woman i mentioned making an effort to be educated before making a purchase. We already have enough bullshit laws that are selectively enforced by add more confusion to the mix.

The second amendment was not an Unalienable or even Inalienable right. It's why it was added to the Constitution as an amendment.

I also don't like the requirement of having to lock away guns in a sense more than one deems necessary. When I have children they will know i have guns they will also know not to touch them when im not around but will be trained to use them. I grew up in the household of a police officer i knew better than to screw with my dads guns. Most of our society's perceived problems with objects and entertainment come from shitty parenting.

The more you tell a child they cannot do something, the more they will go out of their way to do it. We can't discipline our kids the way our parents disciplined us. Do it, and you'll be deemed a Domestic Abuser and lose your rights to gun ownership.

Also, I should note the shop I deal with regularly avoids selling to undesirable gun owners such as the woman from the OP regardless of if they can pass the background check.

Who's being selective about gun ownership now?

[wolfie]

IAnd as for those nutballs, what the hell do you need 15 rifles for?

What rifle (or shotgun) would you recommend for someone with the following "mission" requirements? Remember, nobody needs 15 guns, so I'm looking for recommendations for a SINGLE GUN that can do all of the following:

- Hunting small game (rabbits, squirrels) "for the pot", don't want to damage too much meat.

- Hunting trophy moose on a "once in a lifetime" trip.

- "Varmints", such as a fox in the henhouse.

- Protection against large predators (bears, cougars, etc.) while out on the "back 40".

- Upland game birds (pheasants, quail, doves).

- Waterfowl (ducks, geese)

For hunting, it is completely valid. just like having multiple screwdrivers in a tool chest, because different types of game require different types of guns and ammunition.

See above.

Call a cop an asshole

Or call a police officer a "cop" - in the "Hammer's Slammers" sense of the word.

[Skunkle]

I hate firearms. I really despise them. Sure, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Guns just make it a whole heck of a lot easier and faster to kill one or more people. But I support the 2nd amendment completely, as long as the following points are adhered to:
--You must get a background check. No more gun show type buys, where I give you money, you give me a gun, end of story. Every LEGAL purchase must include a background check.
--You must pass a gun safety training course to legally own a firearm.
--You must register your gun. Plenty of people I've met who buy at gun shows never really get around to doing that, and that's unacceptable. It's laziness.
--Mandatory gun locks. People say they're too hard to operate under pressure? Fine. Better ones need to be developed and made available and affordable. Some of those truckloads of money the NRA throws at lobbyists to keep any of the above from happening should be spent on something like this. But no, oh, no, even the slightest change in safety laws is tantamount to "taking all our guns away"!!
Yes, there will always be illegally-owned guns out there. I'm concerned with the steps taken by legal owners here.

Why should somebody have 15 shotguns, or rifles, or pistols, or revolvers? Collector, hunter, whatever. I don't care, go ahead and have a gun safe full of arms for every possible purpose that a member of the public might have. See below.

My question: Why do the public need semi-automatics with huge clips? Why do they need assault rifles? Why should they be allowed to buy machine guns? What purpose do THESE serve to the public owner?
--Somebody breaks into your house. You have to defend yourself. A standard clip should be more than enough, really! Think about it. Twelve shots? You need more than that??
--You're out hunting. Unless you like skipping straight from live game to ground beef, you don't need an assault rifle. Even if you're hunting boar. Bears. Fucking tigers.
---Why the fuck does anybody outside police or military need a functional machine gun??

In my opinion, there's a reasonable middle ground here, and I don't think the requirements I suggested above are draconic. And the argument that they won't stop there being illegal guns out and about is true, but it doesn't mean that it's pointless (or bad) to do the above things. The usual arguments I hear against these sorts of gun control laws boil down to (pick one or more)
---They won't curb the trafficking of illegal weapons
---They put unnecessary and pointless restrictions on good gun owners, who can be mature and responsible without ANY regulations and so should be left to do so on their own
--They're draconian laws that'll be just a stepping stone on the eventual path to banning all public ownership of firearms (as long as the NRA keeps being a powerful force in lopbbying, that will NEVER occur, and if they lobby FOR these control laws AND FOR gun ownership rights, it can work!!)

[BlaqueKatt]

My question: Why do the public need semi-automatics with huge clips?

smaller magazines have no effect on firearm violence(VT shooter had 17 10 round clips, because the hi-cap magazine ban was in effect)

Why do they need assault rifles?

the term "assault rifle" only applies to COSMETIC features, this has been discussed before, it has NOTHING to do with the functionality of the firearm

Why should they be allowed to buy machine guns?

You can't without jumping through tons of ATF hoops, if you can even find one to purchase, they have been illegal to manufacture since before 1980.

ignorance isn't pretty.

[crashhelmet]

smaller magazines have no effect on firearm violence(VT shooter had 17 10 round clips, because the hi-cap magazine ban was in effect)

Yet the Tucson shooter was tackled and apprehended while trying to swap out his 30 round clip for another.

The Newtown shooter also had high capacity clips/mags and was forced to change them out less frequently.

The more often they have to change them out, the more opportunities for them to screw up and buy time for someone to escape or defend themselves.

[wolfie]

Why do they need assault rifles?

the term "assault rifle" only applies to COSMETIC features, this has been discussed before, it has NOTHING to do with the functionality of the firearm

Actually, "assault rifle" is a specific definition having to do STRICTLY with the functionality of the firearm. People wanting to ban "evil black rifles" based on cosmetic features have deliberately tried to confuse the issue by using the term "assault weapon", and hoping people don't understand the difference. Many years ago, I recall reading about 2 shotguns by the same manufacturer, one was a semiauto that looked like a traditional "fowling piece", the other was a pump-action with some of the cosmetic features (carry handle, straight stock, painted black) found on the AR-15 family of rifles. In other words, the LESS CAPABLE gun would be caught under the "assault weapon" ban.

A semiauto-only AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle, and neither is an Uzi, a Thompson submachinegun, a Browning Automatic Rifle, or an M1903 Springfield fitted with a Pederson device. An assault rifle is selective fire (wiki is wrong in saying it needs to have all 3 modes - that would rule out the both the M16A1 which has no burst mode, and the M16A2 has no full auto mode - all it needs is the ability to choose between semiautomatic and ONE of the other modes) firing an intermediate cartridge (Uzi and "Tommy Gun" use pistol cartridges, BAR and the modified Springfield fire a .30-06, which is a full-power cartridge), and using a detachable magazine.

But I support the 2nd amendment completely, as long as the following points are adhered to:
--You must get a background check. No more gun show type buys, where I give you money, you give me a gun, end of story. Every LEGAL purchase must include a background check.
--You must pass a gun safety training course to legally own a firearm.
--You must register your gun. Plenty of people I've met who buy at gun shows never really get around to doing that, and that's unacceptable. It's laziness.
--Mandatory gun locks. People say they're too hard to operate under pressure? Fine. Better ones need to be developed and made available and affordable.

More misinformation - the "gun show exemption" doesn't exist - it's an exemption for transactions BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS. If person "A" buys the deer rifle person "B" inherited from his grandfather, no background check needed, whether it's at a gun show or the seller's house. If person "C" buys a gun from a dealer, the check is required, whether it happens at a gun show or at the dealer's normal place of business.

I agree with the safety course.

As happened in New Orleans after Katrina, and after California's "if you register it, you can keep it" fiasco, you expect people to make it easier for governments to steal their guns?

All modern cartridge-loading firearms come with an easy-to-operate lock - a variant of the percussion lock. Note that "gun lock" is a specific term. If you're talking about requiring that guns be locked up when not in use, remember that (assuming U.S.) home defense is a legitimate reason to possess a firearm. ANYTHING that delays an authorized user gaining access to, and making usable, a piece of emergency equipment is putting lives at risk. What are you going to ask for next - the requirement to lock up fire extinguishers?

My question: Why do the public need semi-automatics with huge clips?
--Somebody breaks into your house. You have to defend yourself. A standard clip should be more than enough, really! Think about it. Twelve shots? You need more than that??
--You're out hunting. Unless you like skipping straight from live game to ground beef, you don't need an assault rifle. Even if you're hunting boar. Bears. Fucking tigers.
---Why the fuck does anybody outside police or military need a functional machine gun??

"High-capacity" magazines? Some of what New York is pushing for would ban the Lee Enfield, the M1911 Colt, some .30-30 Winchester rifles, and a lot of .22 rifles on the grounds of having "high-capacity" magazines. People tend to buy what the "experts" do. When the standard police sidearm was a .38 revolver, the same gun was a very popular civilian purchase. Now the police are buying 9mm autoloaders. Guess what is now a popular civilian pistol?

You DON'T need an assault rifle for hunting, ESPECIALLY if you're hunting bears. 5.56 NATO (and its civilian equivalent) is a bit on the light side for whitetail deer, and for dangerous game you NEED a full-power cartridge (which an assault rifle, by definition, doesn't use). For a lot of the "big 5" trophy animals in Africa, you wouldn't be allowed to use a .30-06 (a full-power cartridge) because it's not powerful enough.

When the 2nd amendment was written, it was fairly common for a rich man to outfit (and take command of) a regiment of volunteers, INCLUDING artillery. A large part of the U.S.'s early naval presence consisted of privateers (privately owned warships licensed to take on shipping from enemy countries). In other words, it documented (note the difference between "documenting" and "granting") the right to own the type of weapons used by soldiers in a standing army. In the 21st century, machine guns fall into that category. Why shouldn't Bill Gates be allowed to buy an Iowa-class yacht? Take a close look at the 2nd amendment, and tell me where the term "small arms" appears.

[crashhelmet]

Take a close look at the 2nd amendment, and tell me where the term "small arms" appears.

Tell me where it says "Military Grade Weaponry" or "Tactical Fighter" or "Abrams Tank"

[wolfie]

Tell me where it says "Military Grade Weaponry" or "Tactical Fighter" or "Abrams Tank"

It doesn't mention them for the same reason it doesn't mention "Apollo Moon Landing" and "cellphone" - they're terms that didn't exist at the time it was written. "Small arms", referring to personal weapons (as opposed to artillery), was a term that DID exist. If it had been intended to apply ONLY to small arms, it would have used that term, instead of simply "arms".

[BlaqueKatt]

The more often they have to change them out, the more opportunities for them to screw up and buy time for someone to escape or defend themselves.

we've been over this before, it takes at most 1-5 seconds to change a clip. hi-cap magazines actually Jam more(weaker springs used to feed), as a matter of fact the aurora shooter abandoned one of his weapons because of that.

can I call bingo because almost every one of these 7 myths have been brought into play?