Guns

[FoolKiller]

I envisage you scratching your head, thinking "why on earth would he not want a gun?", and maybe that's my point. If it's nigh on an automatic expectation that a person will want a gun, then the reasoning and point of having a gun may easily be lost, or never found.

It should be understood that not all Americans that support gun ownership rights think you should own a gun. I don't think everyone should. Some are too stupid or not responsible enough for a gun to be anything but dangerous. I personally don't have a gun but I believe it is the right of every American to have one. I wouldn't feel comfortable enough having one in my home while my daughter is too young to understand what it is or what it can do. At the same time I live in an area that has a relatively low crime rate, so a criminal threat to my family is unlikely. However, crime is increasing as gangs from Detroit (which has stricter gun control than we do) are moving into the area. A close friend was a victim of a home invasion. If this continues then I might be getting a gun. Seeing my friend's wife scared to enter her home alone is something I don't want for my wife/daughter.

To me, "I want a gun, and I have the right to own one" makes sense, but call it what it is.

Conversely, "I have the right to own a gun, so I should own one" would make no sense at all.

I agree with this. To use the previously given tool example: I can own a table saw, and it would be handy once every three years or so. That doesn't mean I should have one or should want one. All tools have a degree of risk around them. If you don't feel you can guarantee the level of safety to balance the risk you shouldn't have that tool, be it a gun, car, of hammer.

There's no indication to me that I would have more freedom if I owned a gun. Opposite in fact, as I would have one more responsibility in my life. I don't need that.

Envision this scenario if you will.

Your scenario is not guaranteeing freedoms. It is preventing a violation of your wife's freedom by an individual. A rapist is not taking your rights away, legal or inalienable.

That said, only an armed populace can prevent the government from removing legal rights, including legal access to inalienable rights. Gun ownership does allow you to be able to defend yourself from your government, or foreign invaders, who may wish to trample your rights one day. That is the only way guns guarantee your freedoms. Everything else is just cleaning up for the failure of law enforcement. And when I do own a gun again, this will be why, not fear of random criminal elements.


By the way, what is our obsession with the idea of a roadside murderer/rapist who just happens to be psychic and able to know exactly when and where his next victim will breakdown? It sounds like a real threat as much as the terrorists the government tells me justify the TSA and NSA actions. Just a boogeyman that might actually happen once, or less, every ten years.

We could go anywhere with "what ifs", including situations that would end even worse than your hypothetical, if guns were involved. I just hate the idea of "fixing" things that way. It distresses me enough just to see a bridge with features designed specifically to stop people being able to throw rocks on to traffic. Or people buying bigger and bigger cars so that they are safer, or "safer", in the event of a crash. I find it really sad to get to a point where escalation appears to be the only option, and it's a slippery slide.

Don't buy into paranoid freaks scaremongering. Crime is on the decline in the US. Most of the safety features we put around have more to do with hysterical busy bodies than any actual threat. The "safer" car thing is the same way. It feels safer to be in a big car, but they are more likely to roll over and being big doesn't mean it is well designed for safety.

The things you see today are not the same as seatbelts and airbags being put in place because cars got faster and roads got wider and straighter. These things you distress over are like putting safety belts in a Daimler Motor Carriage, pointless.

The escalation debate is a worthwhile one, in my opinion. Though I don't envy anyone trying to work out how reversing escalation could be possible in countries with embedded and wide gun cultures.

Areas in the US with stricter gun control tend to have higher rates of gun crime. And US crime rates are decreasing, despite this "gun culture" you seem to think we have. Of course, there is the example of Kennesaw, Georgia, which required the head of households to own a gun (some exceptions allowed) in 1982. Their violent crime rates are 85% below the national average.

I'm more than happy living in Australia, and very happy that if someone comes to steal some of my easily accessible possessions (has never happened to me), they will likely not be "packing heat". Strange as it might sound, I'd rather take a bat to the head than a bullet to the leg, because it is in line with a dearth of escalation. I care about the big picture, and don't want to play my part in tempting fate's slippery slope.

The only issue I take with your opinion is that it is based on the idea that criminals using guns legally obtained those guns. As I assume is the case with most of the few gun crimes that do still happen in Australia, those often are not legally obtained guns.

 

[hogger129]

We could go anywhere with "what ifs", including situations that would end even worse than your hypothetical, if guns were involved. I just hate the idea of "fixing" things that way. It distresses me enough just to see a bridge with features designed specifically to stop people being able to throw rocks on to traffic. Or people buying bigger and bigger cars so that they are safer, or "safer", in the event of a crash. I find it really sad to get to a point where escalation appears to be the only option, and it's a slippery slide.

The escalation debate is a worthwhile one, in my opinion. Though I don't envy anyone trying to work out how reversing escalation could be possible in countries with embedded and wide gun cultures.

I'm more than happy living in Australia, and very happy that if someone comes to steal some of my easily accessible possessions (has never happened to me), they will likely not be "packing heat". Strange as it might sound, I'd rather take a bat to the head than a bullet to the leg, because it is in line with a dearth of escalation. I care about the big picture, and don't want to play my part in tempting fate's slippery slope.

Strange you should mention Australia because violent crime there is higher per capita than it is in the United States. It is also higher per capita in the UK than in the United States. We also have way more guns per capita than either Australia or the UK. Criminals are going to get them one way or another. They are mostly illegal in the UK or Australia, but the bad guys still manage to get them. Tell me again how effective those laws are.

Just because you want your safety doesn't mean you get to nullify everybody else's ability to reasonably defend themselves.

Now as for "assault" weapons; I don't own one, but I don't see why people should not be allowed to. It's just a rifle that looks like a military rifle but doesn't actually operate any differently than a plain hunting rifle except that the rifle is a little shorter, looks scary, and holds a few more bullets in the magazine. I don't see anywhere written in the Bill of Rights that makes exceptions for so-called "assault" weapons. You can reasonably defend yourself with them without causing harm to others in the process.

 

[hogger129]

Envision this scenario if you will.

You and your wife are on a drive. Your car suddenly breaks down in the middle of no-mans land. Along comes a man whom you think will help you. At first he appears to be a nice citizen, willing to help a stranded motorist. Suddenly he pulls a weapon and proceeds to rape your wife. Your are left there doing what ? Nothing. Because you would not want to take on an added responsibility of protecting your wife? Try living with that one the rest of your life. You could do nothing to help your wife except sit back and watch her get nailed by a rapist.

Adding this responsibility could have protected her 'ya know. I don't think it's that big of an added responsibility to protect loved ones.

But to each his own .... as you have said,

It's your life, run it as you want to.
Of course, your from Australia, you don't get that choice ..... sad.

You're not taking into account how stupid some people are. Many think the world is like a good neighbor and situations like this can't possibly happen to them.

 

[LeMansAid]

Circling back around to where I begun for a moment: I readily recognise that the conversation about whether or not guns should be encouraged, allowed, disallowed, or heavily restricted, is complex, and unlikely to ever find any sort of consensus. But, the question that I initially raised is a much simpler one: What is the core motivation for ownership for an individual? And what is believed to be the general core motivation for a given society?

That's what I am most interested in. Where I wrote....

To me, "I want a gun, and I have the right to own one" makes sense, but call it what it is.

.... I was making the point about being truthful about core motivation.

Some are too stupid or not responsible enough for a gun to be anything but dangerous..... (edit) ..... but I believe it is the right of every American to have one.

Unless I'm taking too much liberty with the words I've edited, I just can't fathom this. Granted, you seem to have a fairly sensible attitude towards ownership in general though.

Strange you should mention Australia because violent crime there is higher per capita than it is in the United States.

And if I'm right in thinking that the consumption of a drug called alcohol is massively responsible for violent crime, I am willing to put my "money where my mouth is". I enjoy drinking with friends and family, and live near two of the world's best wine regions. Regardless, if a ban on alcohol was introduced and would make our society as a whole, safer, I would take the hit for the greater good and not oppose it. While not a perfect analogy, I wonder: how many gun owners would share those thoughts in relation to guns?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Circling back around to where I begun for a moment: I readily recognise that the conversation about whether or not guns should be encouraged, allowed, disallowed, or heavily restricted, is complex, and unlikely to ever find any sort of consensus. But, the question that I initially raised is a much simpler one: What is the core motivation for ownership for an individual? And what is believed to be the general core motivation for a given society?

That's what I am most interested in. Where I wrote.... .... I was making the point about being truthful about core motivation.

It isn't a simple one, it's various reasons that are concise and sometimes vague. The point is it's legal and people don't need to justify why they legally purchase and maintain a gun as I've said.

Unless I'm taking too much liberty with the words I've edited, I just can't fathom this. Granted, you seem to have a fairly sensible attitude towards ownership in general though.

Can't fathom what? You've only gave baseless ideas of what you think is going on through others, rather than giving your perspective. In other words it seems you don't like guns and don't see a reason to but rather build your argument off others before you say that.

And if I'm right in thinking that the consumption of a drug called alcohol is massively responsible for violent crime, I am willing to put my "money where my mouth is". I enjoy drinking with friends and family, and live near two of the world's best wine regions. Regardless, if a ban on alcohol was introduced and would make our society as a whole, safer, I would take the hit for the greater good and not oppose it. While not a perfect analogy, I wonder: how many gun owners would share those thoughts in relation to guns?

What daft outlandish bs you've said here. First off unless you have documentation that links violent crime -which is done by many other weapons that aren't guns- to even suggest this, that would be nice for all of us to see. Prohibition doesn't work we've seen it already with Alcohol, maybe you should get educated on history, the same could be said for guns as well. Also your pseudo intellectualism and self righteousness isn't helping your argument.

 

[LeMansAid]

I'm just trying to talk about attitudes, and I don't think I've left mine out at all.

I'm not pseudo anything, but also never claimed to be an intellectual. I can cop the self righteous jab though.

Feel free to hit the ignore button.

 

[FoolKiller]

Unless I'm taking too much liberty with the words I've edited, I just can't fathom this.

Stupidity and irresponsibility is not a crime. Any adult of consenting age has the same rights as all other adults of consenting age (I do acknowledge consenting age is arbitrary and varies from place to place and product to product). If we were to base who has what rights by stupidity and irresponsibility the roads would be empty, liquor companies would go out of business, and Subway would be the only "fast food" chain to sustain a profit.

Every person has equal rights until their actions abuse the rights of others. Everyone has the right to own a gun until they prove their stupidity or irresponsibility, including criminality, is a danger to others.

Not that hard to fathom.

 

[Kent]

I always find it difficult to logically explain how non-violent, responsible citizens giving up their right to arms is better for the greater good.

Most of the time I end up feeling like people asking non-violent, responsible adults to give up their guns aren't actually doing so for the sake of a greater good but for the sake of their own opinion, or for their own criminal enterprise.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Or because they don't like guns, see them and get scared of the idea. Or they do it some times to due to this naive sense that the world would be full of peace if guns didn't exist. Too bad history tells a different story, but they ignore that or never realize it.

 

[hogger129]

I always find it difficult to logically explain how non-violent, responsible citizens giving up their right to arms is better for the greater good.

Most of the time I end up feeling like people asking non-violent, responsible adults to give up their guns aren't actually doing so for the sake of a greater good but for the sake of their own opinion, or for their own criminal enterprise.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Nicksfix]

I always find it difficult to logically explain how non-violent, responsible citizens giving up their right to arms is better for the greater good.

Most of the time I end up feeling like people asking non-violent, responsible adults to give up their guns aren't actually doing so for the sake of a greater good but for the sake of their own opinion, or for their own criminal enterprise.

NOICE !!!!! *Agrees with your post 100%*

Simply put, as I've said a hundred times before. These people simply do not know anything other than the fact that it's a gun and guns are Satan.

Mmmmmm ok.

 

[Crash]

Circling back around to where I begun for a moment: I readily recognise that the conversation about whether or not guns should be encouraged, allowed, disallowed, or heavily restricted, is complex, and unlikely to ever find any sort of consensus. But, the question that I initially raised is a much simpler one: What is the core motivation for ownership for an individual? And what is believed to be the general core motivation for a given society?

The core motivations for me at least, are two fold.

1. I enjoy guns. I think they are fun to shoot, and it's certainly an enjoyable challenge to shoot well. I also enjoy the engineering aspect of it. It's not nearly as complex or interesting as a plane or a car, and the basic operating principals of many modern guns haven't changed dramatically in many years, but it's still an engineered tool, and it's interesting to understand the design behind it.

2. Beyond merely enjoying guns, it is absolutely my right and duty to protect myself, my family and my property. I'm a pretty lightly built guy, and in a punching contest, I would probably lose. When faced with a 250lb guy, a firearm is the great equalizer. Now that absolutely does not mean that I go pull out my gun at every little disagreement, as use of force should be a last resort, however, if I have reason to believe that my life is in danger (example: the assailant is pointing a gun at me), then I will do what is necessary to defend myself. I recognize that the likelihood of this happening is extremely low, and there are steps that I can take to minimize that likelihood. I also certainly hope that I will never encounter a situation like that, but in case it happens, I am able to defend myself.

And if I'm right in thinking that the consumption of a drug called alcohol is massively responsible for violent crime, I am willing to put my "money where my mouth is". I enjoy drinking with friends and family, and live near two of the world's best wine regions. Regardless, if a ban on alcohol was introduced and would make our society as a whole, safer, I would take the hit for the greater good and not oppose it. While not a perfect analogy, I wonder: how many gun owners would share those thoughts in relation to guns?

Perhaps the response to this would be better suited for the Human Rights thread, but here goes:

If alcohol is banned because it is for the "greater good" and promotes a "safer society," at what point will it stop? Perhaps we should ban knives because they can be and are used as weapons? Surely that will make society "safer." Perhaps we should ban political and religious discourse? Some people get so heated up in arguing about their political and religious beliefs that they get violent towards others. Surely banning that would prevent these instances from escalating into a fight. Perhaps we should ban cars? They are after all required for car collisions, many of which hurt, maim or kill people.

What about unhealthy habits? Is a healthier society a safer society? If so, then perhaps we should ban sugary drinks, or fatty foods, so that people can't get fat? What about mandatory exercise? Should that be passed and enforced, so society is healthier?

As a responsible adult, I see no reason why others' stupidity, irresponsibility and inability to make good choices should impact me. I enjoy drinking soda, but I limit my intake for health reasons. I enjoy alcohol responsibly, I don't go and get into fights. Why can't I enjoy alcohol? This is likewise true for guns. I don't go around threatening or shooting people, why can't I enjoy my gun?

It is an individual's responsibility to exercise their judgement and make choices that does not impact other people. Government absolutely should not be making laws banning something just because a minority of people would be stupid about it. Punish the individuals, don't punish the rest of society.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

 

[LeMansAid]

That's spot on Crash, and exactly the kind of response I was looking for. In your case, you are honest enough to state that you love guns, and love/appreciate them in a way that I would call healthy.

In bringing up the alcohol example, I was still only trying to talk about attitudes. ie. putting aside the discussion about pros and cons, and getting to pure principles. I'm not naive enough to think that banning alcohol would be inherently simple or effective.

Every person has equal rights until their actions abuse the rights of others. Everyone has the right to own a gun until they prove their stupidity or irresponsibility, including criminality, is a danger to others.

I hope I'm not getting caught up in semantics in thinking of it the other way around. I'm not sure what the license situation is in the US and what the variations are with the different states (I found this while searching by the way: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/08/iowa-grants-gun-permits-to-the-blind/2780303/), so I'll base my thoughts on how I understand things to work here. The right is earned, and not acquired by merely existing, and I think that is very important. Also, over here, a person needs to register use of a gun periodically to hold on to their license (ie. using at an official rifle range), which makes a whole lot of sense to me.

I believe that a person should satisfy various criteria in order to be afforded a gun license (eyesight being one of them). If at all possible, I'd like to see irresponsible people weeded out at that point. So basically, that the mandate is with the applicant to prove their responsibility and be given the right, rather than for the right to be there by default and taken away if it can be proven that the individual is sufficiently irresponsible.

That said, there's been times in my life where I've been an utter lunatic, but still would have been able to get a gun license in Australia. I had no criminal record, and would have been able to present myself as a responsible person, even though I wasn't. It was a good thing that I was not able to easily steal or get a gun by nefarious means (and I'm not trying to give any kind of back handed slap with that).

 

[FoolKiller]

I hope I'm not getting caught up in semantics in thinking of it the other way around. I'm not sure what the license situation is in the US and what the variations are with the different states (I found this while searching by the way: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/08/iowa-grants-gun-permits-to-the-blind/2780303/), so I'll base my thoughts on how I understand things to work here. The right is earned, and not acquired by merely existing, and I think that is very important. Also, over here, a person needs to register use of a gun periodically to hold on to their license (ie. using at an official rifle range), which makes a whole lot of sense to me.

I believe that a person should satisfy various criteria in order to be afforded a gun license (eyesight being one of them). If at all possible, I'd like to see irresponsible people weeded out at that point. So basically, that the mandate is with the applicant to prove their responsibility and be given the right, rather than for the right to be there by default and taken away if it can be proven that the individual is sufficiently irresponsible.

That said, there's been times in my life where I've been an utter lunatic, but still would have been able to get a gun license in Australia. I had no criminal record, and would have been able to present myself as a responsible person, even though I wasn't. It was a good thing that I was not able to easily steal or get a gun by nefarious means (and I'm not trying to give any kind of back handed slap with that).

This is how we give out driver's licenses, including eyesight test (corrective lenses allowed).
I don't think it works.

See, some of the most reckless or idiotic people can behave for the length of a testing procedure for the average public. You will maybe delay a fraction of a percent, but in the end, it does not address the reason/goal of gun rights: stopping an overreaching government.

 

[Omnis]

Seen that video, but watching it over and over in gif form makes me realize something: Maybe I had better learn and train pistols with my right hand. That guy's free left hand saved his life.

 

[FoolKiller]

Seen that video, but watching it over and over in gif form makes me realize something: Maybe I had better learn and train pistols with my right hand. That guy's free left hand saved his life.

It reminds me of a boxer deflecting a punch and countering with an uppercut. Probably close combat arms training at work. Whether you can do that or not, a criminal who suddenly finds a gun barrel in his mouth will have second thoughts about pulling his own trigger. It also helped that the robber broadcast his movements and approached the counter in a way that kept him from being able to raise his gun in a fluid motion.

 

[BobK]

The right is earned, and not acquired by merely existing, and I think that is very important. Also, over here, a person needs to register use of a gun periodically to hold on to their license (ie. using at an official rifle range), which makes a whole lot of sense to me.

What I'm hearing you say is that one shouldn't have any rights unless granted to you by the government. We feel that one has rights naturally, and can only be taken away by the government if said government can demonstrate why it's necessary.

Although I feel this is drifting off-topic and perhaps should be in the Human Rights thread, how about if the right to vote were treated the same way as Australia's treatment of the right to bear arms? Before you retort they're not at all comparable, think about it for a moment.

More or less along which lines, we feel we need the right to bear arms to help ensure we continue to have a right to vote.

 

[LeMansAid]

No, I think that comparing the right to bear arms to other rights is very much on topic.

Maybe the white era histories of our two countries are a big differential here. Maybe we look at you and see an outdated paranoia, and you look at us and see a people leaving themselves unprotected and lax. Generalisations of course. Fun fact that not everyone will know: we are obligated by law to vote over here, and face a possible fine if we don't.

It just seems that when presented with my experience of living in a an environment where I'm confident of never needing to protect with a gun, and not carrying one, I get this kind of response:

Of course, your from Australia, you don't get that choice ..... sad.

Instead of "damn, if that's true, I'm envious". To me, it points to guns for guns' sake, which goes back to my reasoning behind writing in here in the first place.

What I'm hearing you say is that one shouldn't have any rights unless granted to you by the government. We feel that one has rights naturally, and can only be taken away by the government if said government can demonstrate why it's necessary.

Rights vs privileges I suppose. On guns, it seems that we view it as a privilege, and I'm happy with that.

So, is guns for guns' sake acceptable in society?

 

[Joel]

No, I think that comparing the right to bear arms to other rights is very much on topic.

Maybe the white era histories of our two countries are a big differential here. Maybe we look at you and see an outdated paranoia, and you look at us and see a people leaving themselves unprotected and lax. Generalisations of course. Fun fact that not everyone will know: we are obligated by law to vote over here, and face a possible fine if we don't.

It just seems that when presented with my experience of living in a an environment where I'm confident of never needing to protect with a gun, and not carrying one, I get this kind of response: Instead of "damn, if that's true, I'm envious". To me, it points to guns for guns' sake, which goes back to my reasoning behind writing in here in the first place.

Rights vs privileges I suppose. On guns, it seems that we view it as a privilege, and I'm happy with that.

So, is guns for guns" sake acceptable in society?

I wrote a post outlining my opinions on gun control in the US vs Canada from the perspective of growing up in Canada, and I think it's probably applicable to Australia as well. Besides the internet/video game censorship the cultures seem fairly similar, both countries also had a landmark shooting that lead to stricter gun laws, and similarly liberal political structures.

Snip

Click on the speech bubble to be taken to the post.

Basically to sum it up if you don't read it, I don't think you can take what works in Canada or Australia and apply it as a one size fits all bandage to the USA. There's more at play that lead to Canada and Australia having less violence and murder, and there's more to it than licenses, registries, and bureaucracies. That's without getting into the compelling ideological arguments for gun ownership as a right. I have a tough time saying that a responsible and law abiding citizen has no right to own a gun, while a high school grad who joins the army or police gets one. It just seems so arbitrary, deciding that guns are too dangerous for citizens (people) to have and the only people (citizens) who get to have them are under the arbitrary umbrella of the state.

 

[LeMansAid]

Noob, I did the read, and I like it when people write sensible things. Which you did.

One thing that I would say is these situations are interactive, and not linear. There's no neatly organised sequence where we have: step 1. societal issues arise, step 2. threats emerge, step 3. guns are taken up in self defense. Weapons, very much including guns, are surely interwoven throughout. In a similar way, I doubt that we can expect that the reversal of the trend could be enacted without the flexibility for it to be non-linear. It still comes back to whether or not there is an attitude that means that Americans will hold on to their guns at all costs (again, guns for guns' sake).

From the outside at least, it looks like there's a whole lot of rights paranoia and indoctrinated culture mixed in with the discussions on self defense, and other legitimate debates.

 

[arora]

It just seems that when presented with my experience of living in a an environment where I'm confident of never needing to protect with a gun...

You are protected by guns everyday of your life, most likely American guns in your surrounding waters and airspace among other things

Here is the thing, what if your countries defenses fail? What if your countries police force fails? What if your country turns on you? All sorts of things can happen but to say you don't believe in guns and you don't need guns is total bull crap.

 

[BobK]

As long as the bad guys have guns, the good guys will need them.

I don't understand why this "guns for guns' sake" question. Sounds to me like you're trying to hammer the discussion into a preconceived shape.

 

[Keef]

Seen that video, but watching it over and over in gif form makes me realize something: Maybe I had better learn and train pistols with my right hand. That guy's free left hand saved his life.

There's a reason the left-handed gene isn't the common one.

 

[Slash]

A local county just north of me has over-ruled the SAFE act with new local laws.

 

[Nicksfix]

To me, it points to guns for guns' sake, which goes back to my reasoning behind writing in here in the first place.

So, is guns for guns' sake acceptable in society?

No, it's not guns for guns sake, not even remotely close. At least by my standards.

I've more reasoning on my behalf for my "gun stance".

1) It's a hobby. Firearms are something that I've been infatuated with since an early age.
2) It's a "spare home time job" for me. My wife and I do run a small gun business out of our home. I am a new member in the C&R Dealer program.
3) Proud member of the NRA.
4) Proud member of the USCCA.
5) Proud member of the ORPA.
6) Proud to have passed the CMP.
7) Proud to be a CCW.
8) Proud member of (2) gun clubs.
9) Proud to have been able to take a group of (12) kids and teach a program to them at one of my gun clubs called "Kids on Target". 120 kids were in this program by the way, divided up by 10 instructors. Me being one of them. It is a program designed to teach the youth (8-16 yrs. old) the proper safety, handling, cleaning / maintenance, shooting technique of a firearm.
10) Proud to be able to teach in an up-coming program called "Women on Target". The same applications are applied to what I have described above. Only this time around, we are teaching women. The women also get the added "how to protect yourself from a thug" class, via use of a CCW.

There are 10 viable reasons, so please don't call me a guns for guns sake person .... I think not.

Of course, your from Australia, you don't get that choice ..... sad.

You failed to correlate that statement with the scenario I gave you, which by the way you sort of shrugged off, can't be bothered by the possible "what ifs" ? It was in response to you not being able to (possibly) defend a loved on in a time of need. You as Australians are rendered useless in such a time, should it ever occur. Do you get it now ?

 

[Zenith]

In news, two Senators in Colorado who were responsible for passing magazine capacity bans and other gun control laws were recalled by their constituents yesterday for the first time in Colorado's history.

 

[a6m5]

In news, two Senators in Colorado who were responsible for passing magazine capacity bans and other gun control laws were recalled by their constituents yesterday for the first time in Colorado's history.

I saw that on Google News this morning. Very impressed with the leg work by the people who made it happen. It was said by many to be an uphill battle, and I'm sure they sacrificed a lot of time to make it happen. We should be very proud of them. Lower magazine capacity...... that's just so dumb.

 

[Badasp5.0]

In news, two Senators in Colorado who were responsible for passing magazine capacity bans and other gun control laws were recalled by their constituents yesterday for the first time in Colorado's history.

Bravo Colorado. A lot of people put in some serious leg work on that one.

 

[Sam48]

Lower magazine capacity...... that's just so dumb.

Tell me about it. In New York, they passed a law which mandated that the maximum magazine capacity is seven rounds. This just goes to show how stupid and uneducated they are on guns as there is no such magazine that holds seven rounds.

 

[Zenith]

It probably didn't help that Morse had publicly encouraged his fellow legislators to ignore their constituents, approved plans to equip police departments with grenade launchers and APC's, ran ads accusing the recall organizers of being sex offenders, and took over half a million dollars from Bloomberg and other anti gun groups to try to win his recall. He really didn't help his cause.