Current Events & Hot Topics

Featured Posts
Carpy
I prefer a high capacity magazine when hunting humans
by Carpy
March 8, 2013 at 8:57 PM

Seems Senator Feinstein thinks such a high capacity should be illegal when hunting humans.  Doesn't she realize that human can attack and hurt you if you don't have the firepower to take it down?


During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun control Thursday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) shot down a proposed amendment to her “assault weapons” ban that would exempt military veterans from the gun ban. She also made some questionable claims.

Pushing a ban on high-capacity magazines, Feinstein argued that it is “legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.”

Here’s her dubious rationale:

“The time has come, America, to step up and ban these weapons. The other very important part of this bill is to ban large capacity ammunition feeding devices, those that hold more than 10 rounds. We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines. Limiting magazine capacity is critical because it is when a criminal, a drug dealer, a deranged individual has to pause to change magazines and reload that the police or brave bystanders have the opportunity to take that individual down.”

During the same hearing, she also argued that a military veteran could be mentally ill and suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), therefore should be prevented from buying the semi-automatic weapons that would be banned in her bill.

The California Democrat also made the bizarre claim that the “advent of PTSD” is a “new phenomenon” and a “product of the Iraq war.”

Here’s exactly what she said in context: “The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this.”

Replies

  • Ms.KitKat
    March 9, 2013 at 10:45 AM

    We are not limiting an illegal act. This is not a debate over murder being legal vs. illegal. We are debating the limiting of the damage done by an illegal act.

    It should be illegal to have more than 3 rounds.

    You know that saying" if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander."  well,

    If it's good for the duck it's good for the human.

    Many children would have been spared if Lanza had guns limited to 3 rounds.

     

    **EDIT** Heck- no child would have been killed that day if regulations for better screening of owners was in place. 

    Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

    And my point is that we do not need to limit something that is already ILLEGAL - hunting humans is ILLEGAL.


    Quoting Ms.KitKat:

     That is exactly the point. There needs to be a legal limit.


    Not banning guns. LegallyLimiting guns.  


    Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

    No, you are missing my point. There are no limits on rounds legal for hunting humans because it is NOT LEGAL to hunt humans. We do not have laws about how much money you can legally steal from a bank, either, because stealing from a bank at all is already illegal.



    Quoting Ms.KitKat:


     You are missing my point.



    If duck hunters are limited to 3 rounds under federal and state laws, then one who purchases a gun NOT for the purpose of duck hunting- they get to have upwards of 150 rounds. Who then presumably will these gun owners use their guns on. It's not for hunting. It's to kill an {human} intruder.



    So, why do ducks have more protection over humans.



    Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

    Hunting ducks is legal. Hunting humans with ANY caliber weapon, ANY number of rounds, is already ILLEGAL. It is ILLEGAL to hunt humans with even a single round. It is called "murder".




    Quoting Ms.KitKat:



     "We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. "




    What many of you ladies fail to recognize: why are we so concerned about the duck and are limited to 3 rounds. But when it comes to personal gun ownership to shoot at a human being, we have no limits. In fact, the limit is up to how much the manufacturer can make " 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines"




    Why do "we" care so damn much more about a damned duck we can only shoot them 3 rounds worth. But our children sitting in a school building who REALLY ARE "sitting ducks" 150 rounds are a-okay. 




     



     


     

  • LoveMyBoyK
    March 9, 2013 at 10:52 AM
    I see, so you believe psychos hell Bent on killing people, breaking the already existing law against murder, will be stopped in their tracks by a law limiting how much ammo a gun is Legally allowed. Huh. Okily dokily, then.


    Quoting Ms.KitKat:

    We are not limiting an illegal act. This is not a debate over murder being legal vs. illegal. We are debating the limiting of the damage done by an illegal act.


    It should be illegal to have more than 3 rounds.


    You know that saying" if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander."  well,


    If it's good for the duck it's good for the human.


    Many children would have been spared if Lanza had guns limited to 3 rounds.


     


    **EDIT** Heck- no child would have been killed that day if regulations for better screening of owners was in place. 


    Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

    And my point is that we do not need to limit something that is already ILLEGAL - hunting humans is ILLEGAL.



    Quoting Ms.KitKat:


     That is exactly the point. There needs to be a legal limit.



    Not banning guns. LegallyLimiting guns.  



    Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

    No, you are missing my point. There are no limits on rounds legal for hunting humans because it is NOT LEGAL to hunt humans. We do not have laws about how much money you can legally steal from a bank, either, because stealing from a bank at all is already illegal.




    Quoting Ms.KitKat:



     You are missing my point.




    If duck hunters are limited to 3 rounds under federal and state laws, then one who purchases a gun NOT for the purpose of duck hunting- they get to have upwards of 150 rounds. Who then presumably will these gun owners use their guns on. It's not for hunting. It's to kill an {human} intruder.




    So, why do ducks have more protection over humans.




    Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

    Hunting ducks is legal. Hunting humans with ANY caliber weapon, ANY number of rounds, is already ILLEGAL. It is ILLEGAL to hunt humans with even a single round. It is called "murder".





    Quoting Ms.KitKat:




     "We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. "





    What many of you ladies fail to recognize: why are we so concerned about the duck and are limited to 3 rounds. But when it comes to personal gun ownership to shoot at a human being, we have no limits. In fact, the limit is up to how much the manufacturer can make " 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines"





    Why do "we" care so damn much more about a damned duck we can only shoot them 3 rounds worth. But our children sitting in a school building who REALLY ARE "sitting ducks" 150 rounds are a-okay. 





     




     



     


  • Ms.KitKat
    March 9, 2013 at 11:06 AM

     It will not limit the act. "Psychos" as you affectionately call them are not necessarily concerned about "right" vs. "wrong" However, the number killed could be curbed.  Taking the time to pull out another gun; taking the time to reload. Those seconds can save lives. In fact, I believe it did save some children's lives at Sandy hook while Lanza had to reload. Imagine if he had to reload more often.

    Look- you and I know there is no way to stop the psycho "hell bent on killing." So limiting the potential damage is the next best thing. Even saving one life because of a re-load is well worth it.

    and so at target practice, you respectable, law abiding gun owners must re-load more frequently and so it's not so "nice" to have an automatic multiple round experience shooting/practicing your targets.

    To that I say, well then each time you have to stop and re-load your 3 round mag,  say a little prayer to all those chidlren's lives who are lost forever and those of their families who are left to mourn because of 150 mags. They sure could use some extra prayers.

    ________________________________________________________________

    Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

    I see, so you believe psychos hell Bent on killing people, breaking the already existing law against murder, will be stopped in their tracks by a law limiting how much ammo a gun is Legally allowed. Huh. Okily dokily, then.


    Quoting Ms.KitKat:

    We are not limiting an illegal act. This is not a debate over murder being legal vs. illegal. We are debating the limiting of the damage done by an illegal act.


    It should be illegal to have more than 3 rounds.


    You know that saying" if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander."  well,


    If it's good for the duck it's good for the human.


    Many children would have been spared if Lanza had guns limited to 3 rounds.


     


    **EDIT** Heck- no child would have been killed that day if regulations for better screening of owners was in place. 


    Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

    And my point is that we do not need to limit something that is already ILLEGAL - hunting humans is ILLEGAL.



    Quoting Ms.KitKat:


     That is exactly the point. There needs to be a legal limit.



    Not banning guns. LegallyLimiting guns.  



    Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

    No, you are missing my point. There are no limits on rounds legal for hunting humans because it is NOT LEGAL to hunt humans. We do not have laws about how much money you can legally steal from a bank, either, because stealing from a bank at all is already illegal.




    Quoting Ms.KitKat:



     You are missing my point.




    If duck hunters are limited to 3 rounds under federal and state laws, then one who purchases a gun NOT for the purpose of duck hunting- they get to have upwards of 150 rounds. Who then presumably will these gun owners use their guns on. It's not for hunting. It's to kill an {human} intruder.




    So, why do ducks have more protection over humans.




    Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

    Hunting ducks is legal. Hunting humans with ANY caliber weapon, ANY number of rounds, is already ILLEGAL. It is ILLEGAL to hunt humans with even a single round. It is called "murder".





    Quoting Ms.KitKat:




     "We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. "





    What many of you ladies fail to recognize: why are we so concerned about the duck and are limited to 3 rounds. But when it comes to personal gun ownership to shoot at a human being, we have no limits. In fact, the limit is up to how much the manufacturer can make " 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines"





    Why do "we" care so damn much more about a damned duck we can only shoot them 3 rounds worth. But our children sitting in a school building who REALLY ARE "sitting ducks" 150 rounds are a-okay. 





     




     



     


     

  • Farmlady09
    March 9, 2013 at 3:18 PM

    The law states that I have every right to shoot someone who enters my home by force. "I" have no control over that other than to lock my door. That lock is there for 'their' protection, not mine ~ because I AM protected. I have every right to protect myself, and with lethal force if the situation warrants it. I have the right to the same protection as any other person in this country ~ including elected idiots, people who choose to pay others to hold guns for them, and those designated protective services such as the president. My life is NO less valuable or worthy than their lives.

    You are quite free to consider yourself less worthy, to allow your home and possessions to be burglarized, or yourself to be raped/beaten/killed rather than defend yourself. I don't agree with that mentallity, but I support your right to make decisions like that for yourself.

    What I do not ~ and will not ever ~ support is your belief that you have some sort of 'right' to make that decision for ANYone but yourself and those you are responsible for.

    Ms. Feinstein is an elected idiot (which should leave no doubt as to what I think of those who actually voted for her). Her words are not twisted or edited. She's just an absolute idiot, and most of the time she should fake a bad sore throat instead of opening her yap and letting the idiocy flow so freely.

    Quoting lga1965:

     

    The shocking murder of 26 children and adults in Newtown, Conn., on Friday has sparked a national discussion on gun control, with mostly Democratic legislators saying laws need to be tightened.

    President Bill Clinton signed an assault weapons ban into law in 1994, but the measure expired a decade later. Democrats have tried several times since then to renew the ban, without success.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/dianne-feinstein-assault-weapons-ban_n_2311477.html

    Feinstein called for the ban to be renewed after the mass shooting in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater that killed 12 people and injured 58 others.

    "Who needs these military-style assault weapons? Who needs an ammunition feeding device capable of holding 100 rounds?" Feinstein wrote on her campaign website. "These weapons are not for hunting deer -- they’re for hunting people

    *************************

    It is true that people who want these weapons aren't deer hunting, they are preparing to shoot intruders , burglars, with them and shoot to kill which I also see as "hunting humans". Many of you Moms at CM say that you want this type of weapon and that you will shoot to kill. That seems like "hunting humans" to me.

    Make fun of her all you want but you are hypocritcal.

     And Ms Feinstein's comments were twisted and reworded by the Conservative site that you copied.


     

  • lga1965
    by lga1965
    March 9, 2013 at 3:27 PM

     I am not "making any decisions " for anyone. I do have an opinion and I don't agree with your opinion of Ms Feinstein.

    But we are all different.....

    Quoting Farmlady09:

    The law states that I have every right to shoot someone who enters my home by force. "I" have no control over that other than to lock my door. That lock is there for 'their' protection, not mine ~ because I AM protected. I have every right to protect myself, and with lethal force if the situation warrants it. I have the right to the same protection as any other person in this country ~ including elected idiots, people who choose to pay others to hold guns for them, and those designated protective services such as the president. My life is NO less valuable or worthy than their lives.

    You are quite free to consider yourself less worthy, to allow your home and possessions to be burglarized, or yourself to be raped/beaten/killed rather than defend yourself. I don't agree with that mentallity, but I support your right to make decisions like that for yourself.

    What I do not ~ and will not ever ~ support is your belief that you have some sort of 'right' to make that decision for ANYone but yourself and those you are responsible for.

    Ms. Feinstein is an elected idiot (which should leave no doubt as to what I think of those who actually voted for her). Her words are not twisted or edited. She's just an absolute idiot, and most of the time she should fake a bad sore throat instead of opening her yap and letting the idiocy flow so freely.

    Quoting lga1965:

     

    The shocking murder of 26 children and adults in Newtown, Conn., on Friday has sparked a national discussion on gun control, with mostly Democratic legislators saying laws need to be tightened.

    President Bill Clinton signed an assault weapons ban into law in 1994, but the measure expired a decade later. Democrats have tried several times since then to renew the ban, without success.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/dianne-feinstein-assault-weapons-ban_n_2311477.html

    Feinstein called for the ban to be renewed after the mass shooting in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater that killed 12 people and injured 58 others.

    "Who needs these military-style assault weapons? Who needs an ammunition feeding device capable of holding 100 rounds?" Feinstein wrote on her campaign website. "These weapons are not for hunting deer -- they’re for hunting people

    *************************

    It is true that people who want these weapons aren't deer hunting, they are preparing to shoot intruders , burglars, with them and shoot to kill which I also see as "hunting humans". Many of you Moms at CM say that you want this type of weapon and that you will shoot to kill. That seems like "hunting humans" to me.

    Make fun of her all you want but you are hypocritcal.

     And Ms Feinstein's comments were twisted and reworded by the Conservative site that you copied.

     

     

     

  • Farmlady09
    March 9, 2013 at 3:30 PM

    Yes we are ~ but my choices are no more right/wrong than yours.

    There are obviously at least a few people who don't share my opinion of Ms. Feinstein. That's ok ... but I'm quite happy to not live in her district.


    Quoting lga1965:

     I am not "making any decisions " for anyone. I do have an opinion and I don't agree with your opinion of Ms Feinstein.

    But we are all different.....

    Quoting Farmlady09:

    The law states that I have every right to shoot someone who enters my home by force. "I" have no control over that other than to lock my door. That lock is there for 'their' protection, not mine ~ because I AM protected. I have every right to protect myself, and with lethal force if the situation warrants it. I have the right to the same protection as any other person in this country ~ including elected idiots, people who choose to pay others to hold guns for them, and those designated protective services such as the president. My life is NO less valuable or worthy than their lives.

    You are quite free to consider yourself less worthy, to allow your home and possessions to be burglarized, or yourself to be raped/beaten/killed rather than defend yourself. I don't agree with that mentallity, but I support your right to make decisions like that for yourself.

    What I do not ~ and will not ever ~ support is your belief that you have some sort of 'right' to make that decision for ANYone but yourself and those you are responsible for.

    Ms. Feinstein is an elected idiot (which should leave no doubt as to what I think of those who actually voted for her). Her words are not twisted or edited. She's just an absolute idiot, and most of the time she should fake a bad sore throat instead of opening her yap and letting the idiocy flow so freely.

    Quoting lga1965:

     

    The shocking murder of 26 children and adults in Newtown, Conn., on Friday has sparked a national discussion on gun control, with mostly Democratic legislators saying laws need to be tightened.

    President Bill Clinton signed an assault weapons ban into law in 1994, but the measure expired a decade later. Democrats have tried several times since then to renew the ban, without success.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/dianne-feinstein-assault-weapons-ban_n_2311477.html

    Feinstein called for the ban to be renewed after the mass shooting in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater that killed 12 people and injured 58 others.

    "Who needs these military-style assault weapons? Who needs an ammunition feeding device capable of holding 100 rounds?" Feinstein wrote on her campaign website. "These weapons are not for hunting deer -- they’re for hunting people

    *************************

    It is true that people who want these weapons aren't deer hunting, they are preparing to shoot intruders , burglars, with them and shoot to kill which I also see as "hunting humans". Many of you Moms at CM say that you want this type of weapon and that you will shoot to kill. That seems like "hunting humans" to me.

    Make fun of her all you want but you are hypocritcal.

     And Ms Feinstein's comments were twisted and reworded by the Conservative site that you copied.

     

     

     


     

  • Veni.Vidi.Vici.
    March 9, 2013 at 4:01 PM

    I'm envisioning the movie Predator. ha

Current Events & Hot Topics

Active Posts in All Groups
More Active Posts
Featured Posts in All Groups
More Featured Posts