magley64

I'm just suggesting that we be more cautious about what are regarded as "rights" and what are regarded as "privileges"

apparently mike thinks it's some sort of government conspiracy.... http://www.ohioriders.net/showthread.php?t=101210

No, it WOULD not be accurate because he DID not "flee without firing shots". He in fact shot and killed 2 people and injured a third... He may or may not have even seen the other person holding a gun as he (the ccw guy) was hiding behind a pillar by his own account.

Nope, What I'm saying is the rights of reasonably intelligent people are the same rights as total complete fucking idiots. Think of how stupid the average person is, now realize that half the people are even dumber still...

except that wouldn't be accurate at all, he may not have even seen the CCW guy taking cover behind a pole.

I'll be the first to admit, I don't know shit about shooting. Just the expectation is that if you put that red dot on something, the bullet would go there... Kinda like a laser level, line up the bubbles, flip the switch and you get a straight flat line.

wouldn't it make it easier to hit your target?

says he shot himself... so the CCW citizen must have used mind control or something... cgw article should have been renamed "CCW owner does nothing at all to stop rampaging shooter."

now, not defense, they don't catch bullets, defense would be body armor, or the like...

No, my point was regarding the average intelligence of the public... It was in no way to be used as a limiting factor on your rights, but to point out that rights apply to everyone regardless of their intelligence.

"legally obtained" is the part we're discussing here. the arbitrary line where the government says "no, that's not legal"

let's define misuse (use for other than it's designed purpose)... what are assault weapons designed for?

really? is there ANYTHING you wouldn't want in civilian hands?

or you're trying to dodge my vary valid point that it is reasonable to limit the destructive power that any citizen should be allowed to posses.

a car has a purpose other than death.

No i'm trying to illustrate that we have already decided that certain weapons don't belong in civilian hands, now we're just quabbling over where to draw the line. if you don't like RPG, change it to a minigun...that's a firearm, right?

So do you support any restrictions on the kind of destructive power the average american dullard should be allowed to posses? I'll cite RPG's as an example... Should the kid who sells you french fries have the right to carry around the capability to level a building? Is that good policy?

What is the difference between a gun and a car? A car's primary design intent is to convey someone safely from one place to another. A gun's design intent is to destroy a soft target from a given distance. I'm just talking about the reality of the situation, your government isn't afraid of your gun... It will not stop them from doing something they intend to do, it will not even slow them down, it will not affect their decision making one iota...your gun does not scare them.

I love driving in snow, separates those who know how to drive from those who don't.... Those who do, get to their destinations, those who don't, end up in ditches. I would rather it just be warm all winter, like fall to spring, but if it's gonna be cold out anyway, I'd rather have some snow to play in.

Thing about those, people are making them safer with each generation. Less deadly... The opposite is true with guns, with every generation they become more accurate and more deadly than the last.

No, I'm just not afraid of ever being attacked with a gun... My world is apparently a little more care free than yours.

I'm all for freedom, but we as a society have agreed to limiting destructive power in principle, we're just constantly squabbling over the details. I'm sure there is a destructive limit that you would place on weapons intended for sale by the general public, yes? (for example do you think RPG's should be carried around by just anyone?) Each of us draws that line somewhere a little different. My personal views differ from my political views, but I don't see the need for every day citizens to have weapons intended for war environments.

I have considered it...

I haven't blamed anything on an object. I don't believe it has some magical voodoo powers to make people do things they wouldn't otherwise do. What it does do is make it easier and quicker for someone in a compromised mental/emotional state to do more damage. (According to the reports I heard, the coroner said the kids were in fact killed with the rifle) Mental health in general is great, but how do you improve on the system we already have without infringing on people's rights?

I'll be the first to admit, I don't know a thing about any of the guns. I never bothered to study them. However, if handed a loaded functioning one, they are so intuitive that I bet I could get bullets to come out the business end towards a target... ultimately damaging or destroying it.