Ok so now that you "cleared" that up, ill ask the question again. What regulations would you like to see?


You want regulation, when its already in place.

"Uneducated and uninformed." And a pleasure to make your acquaintance as well.

Large capacity magazines would be a big one to regulate. The 100 round magazine that Holmes tried to use is reported to be notoriously unreliable. But I gather that many of the 30 and 50 round magazines are not. I frequently hear from gun techies that they need the high capacity magazines to guard against tyranny. Yeah, well, this ain't 1778. If a coup by our military ever took off, even the best armed citizen is going to be hard pressed to go up against attack helicopters and drones.

Call me a weak kneed pacifist but I think 10 rounds ought to be plenty for self defense. I'm not too big on the Tec 9 family of guns (no I don't know what their current model is). Assault weapons that offer a simple convert to full auto could perhaps be limited or banned.

You'd be surprised about what our citizens would be capable of. At least the fraction that aren't morbidly obese. The Soviets though the same thing about the Afghans in 1979, and they got their noses bloodied.

Well if you're going to use more government regulations to attempt to solve this problem I'd suggest that you better include shotguns too.

ONE '00' buckshot round sends 9 .33 caliber rounds downrange much more accurately than a person could place your 8 9mm rounds delivered by an uzi. If you're concerned about the horrifying rate of 8 rounds a second I don't mean to alarm you but I could triple that figure with a standard automatic shotgun using '00' buckshot.

I haven't been following the incident in Colorado too closely but I believe the majority of the victims were killed with a shotgun, the perp got fairly few rounds off with the AR-15 before it jammed?

As a side note it should also be pointed out that the .223 round is not a terribly effective round for killing people. Case in point those two wackos that held up the bank in California a couple of years ago shot up the city with fully automatic versions of an AK47 or was it an AR-15? Anyways they were highly trained shooters that held the cops at bay for 45 minutes. They sprayed thousands of rounds downrange and the total number of people they killed was 0.

The AR-15 even with a 100 round magazine isn't as deadly in a place like a movie theater as a simple automatic shotgun.

True, a shotgun is a deadly weapon. I'm guessing there are ways to make the pattern spread out quicker, perhaps a sawed off does that, not sure.

I'm not seriously suggesting they be banned but there are problems with shotguns. One is that tiny bits of lead are scattered willy nilly in water ways and elsewhere. Hard to imagine a better way to distribute heavy metals about, except perhaps cell phones.

The N. Hollywood fools were not in a crowded theater. Most all of the people they were shooting at were able to find cover. One cop had his femur shattered IIRC and was able to get behind a tree that he thought they might saw down with firepower.

Right. The part I don't understand is why you refused to accept the fact that I held that view the first 3 or 4 times I said it, but now you see it so clearly. I guess 5 was the charm.

As for the precise regulations I would like to see, I will go back to what I said before. I don't have an opinion about what the precise regulations should be. It would be above my pay grade to opine on that. Now, I know I only said that once before, and I did not say it quite that directly, so I don't expect you to accept it as my position yet. Should I go ahead and say it 3 or 4 more times? Maybe that would save us all some time.

I saw it the last 4 times, i also asked you the same question several times and you couldnt give an answer.

So you want regulations but dont know what you want them to be. Fair enough, sounds like a typical bs answer. Another on of those "someone should do something" people.
Now that you finally answered that you really dont know what you want, have a good sunday :D

I personally dont have a use for 100 round magazines, i dont shoot enough rounds in one sitting to need one. However i dont see how banning them will solve anything. Ever watch someone who has practiced with an ar-15 change a mag? If anything, the batman shooter could have done more damage with 10 round magazines if he had been better practiced.

Actually, it's the opposite of a bs answer.

Then what the hell is he trying to say? Do you think he knows that automatic weapons are regulated? Only two possible answers- 1)"yes" he knows they are and 2)"no" he thinks they are not.

If he thinks "no" then he's a ignorant idiot- which I said earlier he was not.


If "yes" then why would he say "automatic weapons should be regulated" ??? They already are regulated! We know they are regulated and so does he- so why say what is clearly already known by everyone? The only reason to say that is because he believes they should be regulated more. Is there a second reason?

Please ask him if he knows they are regulated- and if yes he knows- then why would he say they "should be regulated" when they are already regulated.

I'm happy to answer for myself, again.I am not "trying" to say anything. I am saying that automatic weapons should be regulated. I also said that it is reasonable for the President to argue in favor of regulating automatic weapons, which is the point I intended to make when I responded to Txjake earlier in this thread. For some reason you don't have a problem with that part of what I said.You are incorrect, again. There is a third possible answer - "I don't know" - which is the correct answer to many legal questions. For the purposes of this discussion, I have assumed all along that they are regulated. That point doesn't seem to be in dispute.Because I believe they should be regulated. This comment refers to the future, not the present or past. Pretty simple.I said that automatic weapons should be regulated because I believe they should be regulated. Several people on this thread, you being the most persistent, insist that I believe they should be regulated more. I can't explain why you keep trying to put those words in my mouth. There seems to be some strong desire to make sure that you don't agree with me. It's flattering, in an odd sort of way.You don't need me to say it again, do you?

They are regulated and they should continue to be regulated??;)

I assume that is true, but I never intended to make any comment one way or the other about that. MTU asked what I was trying to say. The answer to that question is that I believe automatic weapons should be regulated.Definitely agree with that. kmaysob thinks my position on that point is bs because I can't recite specifics. He sets a tough standard on this. I take it has no opinion on any government regulations other than those on which he knows all the details. He is either (a) incredibly brilliant and knowledgeable or (b) agnostic about many of the regulations that affect his life.

They way your posts read, i assumed the same as mtu. You either thought they wernt or knew they were and wanted further. You might try answering you post something among the lines of " i know they are currently regulated, and my opinion is they should stay that way" that may clear your posts up a little.

However, you state you dont know if they are, and you dont seem interested in doing any reading on it, so how can you form a truthful opinion?

:rolleyes: