Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Former Vice President Dick Cheney, a staunch gun advocate, says tighter weapons regulations might be "appropriate" to prevent another tragedy like the Arizona mass shootings that left six people dead and a congresswoman seriously wounded.

Cheney, an avid hunter, said he is "willing to listen to ideas" on how to better control the purchase and use of firearms.

"Whether or not there's some measure there in terms of limiting the size of the magazine that you can buy to go with a semiautomatic weapon â€" we’ve had that in place before. Maybe it’s appropriate to re-establish that kind of thing, but I think you do have to be careful obviously," Cheney told NBC's Jamie Gangel, national correspondent for "TODAY."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41154929/ns ... nd_courts/
Benedict Arnold. :evil:

I *never* thought highly of the man anyway. Now his stock has hit rock bottom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Cheney sure did. More than W if you ask me.
 

·
Seasteading Aficionado
Joined
·
44,896 Posts
NO surprise there. There are many Republicans out there that are as bad as the most liberal Democrats.

Any person that favors more government control over the population in anyway is an enemy to the Republic and freedom.

Ole' Dick and Bush (haha) were both definitely Big Government GOPers, just look at The Patriot Act, and Eric Cantor is still in office and he is the one who orchestrated most of that bullcrap!

People need to wake up and realize neither party is right, you have to look at the individual candidate, their past, and their voting record. Just look at Gifford, she didn't believe in gun control and is a Democrat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
190 Posts

·
GPDO Commonlaw Spouse
Joined
·
5,514 Posts
Gotta love that they add "an avid hunter". Oh yeah, that makes all the difference. :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
HydroAuto said:
Gotta love that they add "an avid hunter". Oh yeah, that makes all the difference. :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,195 Posts
Isn't this the man that needs to learn about MUZZLE control... :shock:
BEFORE he chimes in on Gun Control.... or is this his way of
telling us that since an old dog can't be taught new tricks perhaps
we should take away HIS guns :screwy:
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,110 Posts
Under current law, certain kinds of weapons are deemed too dangerous to sell to regular Americans under the same easy conditions as most normal guns are sold.
These extra-dangerous include non-sporting weapons like machineguns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, silencers, super-big-bore guns (destructive devices, like certain semi-auto combat shotguns), and disguised guns (Any Other Weapon).

Now let me ask a question to this audience of gun-lovers and gun experts:

On the scale of lethality (how big of a body count could a nutcase rack up if he went berzerk in a crowded public place with a gun) where do semi-automatic assault weapons with high capacity magazines rate?

Let's say it's a scale of 1-10. One is a totally sporting gun that is of little use to criminals or crazies. Sure, it "could" hurt or kill somebody. Any gun could. But the guns that rate a 1 or 2 on the lethality scale are the kind rarely seen used in crime and everyone who knows guns would agree they are the least-useful options in a combat situation.

A "lethality ranking 1" gun would be a single-shot .22 rifle with a full length wooden stock and a 22" long barrel.

And let's say a "10 on the lethality ranking" gun would be the deadliest kind of small arms available in the world, regardless of any laws against them. Full autos, submachineguns, belt fed weapons, etc. An M16 or a true select fire AK-47 would be a "10" on this scale, assuming either one is using a 30 round magazine.

So where would a Glock 19 with a 33 round magazine fit on this scale?

Where would a Draco AK-47 style semi-auto pistol fit on this scale?

How about a 16" barreled M4 type clone, in semi-auto only, but with a 90-round drum magazine instead of a 30-round mag? Where would you rank that one? I'd say a 9 or 10.

So maybe what Dick Cheney and others are saying is that a semi-auto pistol that uses common and easily available 30+ round magazines is the kind of weapon that ranks high enough on the scale of lethality that it should not be regulated the same way as pump action shotguns that hold 6 rounds, or lever-action deer rifles, or 8-shot revolvers.
Maybe these anti-gunners are saying that a Glock pistol with a 33 round magazine, or an AR type handgun with a similar size mag, is right up there with the NFA weapons and should be regulated accordingly.

Factually, as far as the lethality of the weapon goes, are they wrong?
Or is a Draco 7.62 x 39mm pistol with a 75 round drum really in the same league as any other handgun and all of them should be sold with the same minimal restrictions that come with buying any gun, even a 28-gauge side-by-side?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,414 Posts
Unlike Cheney, I do not accidentally shoot my friends in the face with a shotgun while hunting.

Maybe he, personally, needs additional gun control. But I don't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Seriously? What makes a gun lethal is the hands of the person whose mind is filled with larceny. A two shot derringer is lethal if the holder is intent on killing some one. Hell, a salad fork is lethal under the same conditions. Magazine capacity is a red herring tactic.

We need criminal control, not gun control. When the criminals are controlled, idiotic discussions like magazine capacity are laid bare for all to see that they're subterfuge and nothing more.
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,110 Posts
Moga, how many people can you kill with a salad fork?
If you start stabbing people with a salad fork, how well can you hold-off the people who would try to disarm you or knock you unconscious with a chair or something?
Do you agree or disagree with the statement that some weapons are more lethal in the wrong hands than others?
That a criminal or crazy person with a bag full of hand grenades is a greater menace to society than an indentical individual (equally homicidal, equally insane, etc.) wielding a folding Buck knife with a 3" blade?

Everybody else with any common sense knows this, which is why you can't buy hand grenades legally and they are very hard to get even illegally and most criminals couldn't quickly obtain one even if they tried.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
gunsmoker said:
Moga, how many people can you kill with a salad fork?
If you start stabbing people with a salad fork, how well can you hold-off the people who would try to disarm you or knock you unconscious with a chair or something?
Do you agree or disagree with the statement that some weapons are more lethal in the wrong hands than others?
That a criminal or crazy person with a bag full of hand grenades is a greater menace to society than an indentical individual (equally homicidal, equally insane, etc.) wielding a folding Buck knife with a 3" blade?

Everybody else with any common sense knows this, which is why you can't buy hand grenades legally and they are very hard to get even illegally and most criminals couldn't quickly obtain one even if they tried.
What kind of people? People like me, armed and capable, or people that would subjugate me to carrying a less-than-full capacity magazine in my carry gun? People that want to be left alone and are willing to defend themselves against premature death at the hands of a non-productive, degenerate impostor of a human being or from people that strive to eventually render me defenseless against the predators that live amongst us? If the latter, probably several before anyone in their circles even moves to oppose me. Chairs, really? It takes more to deter a murderous felon than that, let alone a deranged mad-man.

I think I've more than adequately answered whether certain implements are more dangerous in some folks hands than in others. Let's control crime, shall we? When we adjudicate a sentence, for instance, we must see to it that the convicted person actually serves the time and is not let out on a commuted sentence. That happens entirely too much and IMO is a determining factor in the reasons for the recidivism in violent crime. The time spent dancing in the blood of people's tragedies so that the gun control agenda is advanced would be much better spent attempting to fix the broken criminal justice system, and I'm sure it would accomplish far more in the practical sense to keep the general public "safe." As far as your other ruminations, I won't involve myself in such tom foolery.
 

·
Member Georgia Carry
Joined
·
11,727 Posts
gunsmoker said:
Moga, how many people can you kill with a salad fork?
If you start stabbing people with a salad fork, how well can you hold-off the people who would try to disarm you or knock you unconscious with a chair or something?
Do you agree or disagree with the statement that some weapons are more lethal in the wrong hands than others?
That a criminal or crazy person with a bag full of hand grenades is a greater menace to society than an indentical individual (equally homicidal, equally insane, etc.) wielding a folding Buck knife with a 3" blade?

Everybody else with any common sense knows this, which is why you can't buy hand grenades legally and they are very hard to get even illegally and most criminals couldn't quickly obtain one even if they tried.
Shall we stick to the topic of firearms? Since that's what we are concerned about regarding our 2nd Amendment rights. Ok? Good.

The potential lethality of a firearm is not germane to the AZ incident, as he could have brought multiple, but lesser capacity weapons to do the same amount of damage that he did. The meaning of "shall not be infringed" does not change, even in the face of crazies who hurt people with firearms.

Last but not least, the founding fathers viewed the 2nd Amendment as not merely securing the right of defense against individual criminal attacks, but primarily as a defense against foreign and domestic tyranny. Tyrants will not limit their magazine capacity or caliber size. Why should the people be forced to be at a disadvantage with regard to firearms in light of these facts?
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,110 Posts
Moga, when they ban your favorite carry gun, I will remind you that a determined and righteous man like yourself can be a veritable killing machine with a salad fork. So you obviously don't need a full capacity magazine, or even a handgun for that matter. Because your mind is your real weapon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
I intend to see to it by lawful and peaceful means that my favorite carry weapon isn't ever banned. Yet, if that ever happens, I will fight like a farmer if I must, yes. I must confess though, I'm not clear on the message that your last comment was meant to convey. What are you implying, exactly?
 

·
Senior Mumbler
Joined
·
6,434 Posts
gunsmoker said:
Under current law, certain kinds of weapons are deemed too dangerous to sell to regular Americans under the same easy conditions as most normal guns are sold.
These extra-dangerous include non-sporting weapons like machineguns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, silencers, super-big-bore guns (destructive devices, like certain semi-auto combat shotguns), and disguised guns (Any Other Weapon).

Now let me ask a question to this audience of gun-lovers and gun experts:

On the scale of lethality (how big of a body count could a nutcase rack up if he went berzerk in a crowded public place with a gun) where do semi-automatic assault weapons with high capacity magazines rate?

Let's say it's a scale of 1-10. One is a totally sporting gun that is of little use to criminals or crazies. Sure, it "could" hurt or kill somebody. Any gun could. But the guns that rate a 1 or 2 on the lethality scale are the kind rarely seen used in crime and everyone who knows guns would agree they are the least-useful options in a combat situation.

A "lethality ranking 1" gun would be a single-shot .22 rifle with a full length wooden stock and a 22" long barrel.

And let's say a "10 on the lethality ranking" gun would be the deadliest kind of small arms available in the world, regardless of any laws against them. Full autos, submachineguns, belt fed weapons, etc. An M16 or a true select fire AK-47 would be a "10" on this scale, assuming either one is using a 30 round magazine.

So where would a Glock 19 with a 33 round magazine fit on this scale?

Where would a Draco AK-47 style semi-auto pistol fit on this scale?

How about a 16" barreled M4 type clone, in semi-auto only, but with a 90-round drum magazine instead of a 30-round mag? Where would you rank that one? I'd say a 9 or 10.

So maybe what Dick Cheney and others are saying is that a semi-auto pistol that uses common and easily available 30+ round magazines is the kind of weapon that ranks high enough on the scale of lethality that it should not be regulated the same way as pump action shotguns that hold 6 rounds, or lever-action deer rifles, or 8-shot revolvers.
Maybe these anti-gunners are saying that a Glock pistol with a 33 round magazine, or an AR type handgun with a similar size mag, is right up there with the NFA weapons and should be regulated accordingly.

Factually, as far as the lethality of the weapon goes, are they wrong?
Or is a Draco 7.62 x 39mm pistol with a 75 round drum really in the same league as any other handgun and all of them should be sold with the same minimal restrictions that come with buying any gun, even a 28-gauge side-by-side?
Where would a automobile rate on your scale? How about a pipe bomb made from common materials? :screwy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,421 Posts
gunsmoker said:
Everybody else with any common sense knows this, which is why you can't buy hand grenades legally and they are very hard to get even illegally and most criminals couldn't quickly obtain one even if they tried.
I didn't think it was illegal, just that $200 and 5 months of waiting was a little excessive for single use applications.
 

·
Member Georgia Carry
Joined
·
11,727 Posts
moga said:
I intend to see to it by lawful and peaceful means that my favorite carry weapon isn't ever banned. Yet, if that ever happens, I will fight like a farmer if I must, yes. I must confess though, I'm not clear on the message that your last comment was meant to convey. What are you implying, exactly?
Gunsmoker is merely buying into the liberals' "need" argument: "Who NEEDS a 33 round magazine", as justification for their proposed ban. However, the 2nd Amendment is not about "need", but about rights.

His last sentence was just a sarcastic jab at your thought process, since he was not able to deal with the substance of your post.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top