Thread: Another Massacre in Colorado

Originally Posted by blinddeafmute

I would have no problem with having a database (such as the otc drug one with pseudoephedrin) to show how much ammo someone has purchased. Not sure what limits would be reasonable, or if limits are even necessary, but a database would probably help.

I wouldnt even go that far. Just have ammo sellers note any person who makes large purchases, submit those names to the FBI, and if a certain name pops up frequently within a couple of months, have them do a more extensive background check on em. If the dude checks out, lets say a 50 year old vet who has had a CCW in good standing for decades, then they could even white flag em so he doesnt get checked out in the future.

Originally Posted by blinddeafmute

Yeah, It's a pretty good idea actually. The fed checks the otc drugs, all banks have to report large checks/deposits/withdrawals. Seems logical that a notification of a large ammo purchase would be easy to do.

Yeah, but like i said...it would piss off the NRA to no end. Any kind of "Database" or such that lists "responsible gun owners," they throw a hissy fit over. Even if it is a reasonable suggestion such as this, lol.

Originally Posted by blinddeafmute

I agree, the 20 rd mag is pretty excessive for hunting. I don't know if It's typical for states, but Indiana has limits on how much ammo you can carry for most hunting. I think some small game and fowl are limitless.Can someone explain the logic to me that somehow laws against large magazines would have deterred this guy, when laws against murder and laws against owning explosives did not? I mean, hes going to be sentenced to a bajillion years in prison, but somehow a fine for owning a large capacity mag would have kept this from happening....

I would rather him have a large capacity 100 round mag then a 30 round mag cause most of the cheap 100 round mags jam and suck balls. Unless you spend over two hundred bucks for a sure fire one 100 round mag it stinks. Plus it makes the weapon heavier and non trained people will be off their shot especially this pecker wood.

another thing go ahead ban 100 round mags it solves nothing. I have 30 round mags with a coupler so in essance can carry 60 rounds at a time. I have one 60 round mag from surefire that is pretty good craftmanship and no jams

before people think im nuts on why I have all this when you go to the range it will be a real bitch keep loading up 10 round mags so i got a special for 10 30 round mags fill them up before you go and save time and money shooting.

Originally Posted by Jimmors

Yeah, but like i said...it would piss off the NRA to no end. Any kind of "Database" or such that lists "responsible gun owners," they throw a hissy fit over. Even if it is a reasonable suggestion such as this, lol.

the reason they throw a hissy fit cause in every situation any time an inch is just given eventually they take the whole foot......

but I agree large purchases of ammo should be tracked. I personally buy mine every six months in 1000 round loads. Its allot cheaper buying it that way. And to be honest wish I knew there was a shortage of ammo and prices are nuts on ammo cause of election time or else I would have loaded up on ammo back in january when supply and price was pretty much normal.

Originally Posted by motownbear

the reason they throw a hissy fit cause in every situation any time an inch is just given eventually they take the whole foot......

lol, not really. Gun Laws have been lax for awhile. Yeah, they got tough after the gun violence in the 70s and 80s, but since then, theyve actually gone the other way.

Originally Posted by Henry Burris

This should really be moved at this point, to the Politics and Debate thread, but I agree with some of what Jimmors said (I've just skimmed through). I really fuggin' want an M16 when I get out, but I don't NEED it. Just like thoser **** wads in LA didn't need all the crap they could get a hold of. It's also impossible to say that security can be everywhere at every time, so the illegal/legal debate is moot in that aspect. However, I do believe in concealed permits, but I think every person that has one needs to jump through many many hoops to get one (mental eval., better be nothing less than an expert on shooting) and cops should be given free rides on a lot of things (note: wherever they go, shit should be free, or cheap), but not on a "civil rights" issue. IDK if this makes sense, but that's what it is.

Well, when it comes to fully auto guns, and guns that no civilian should really OWN, here's another analogy i thought of:

Its kind of like a guy walking into a Chevy dealership and saying "i want to buy a NASCAR Stock Car." Technically, it IS a car, and if a person has a license, they should be able to buy one, no? Even though they wont get much use of it out on the street because they get a whopping 3 Miles Per gallon, they still are "FUN" to drive (i would assume). But unlike most cars, they are only built for a single purpose: racing. Thats it. Not made to carry groceries, cant carry more then one passenger, and doesnt even have a trunk.

Does this mean we should ban NASCAR stock cars? No. They are really good at what they do..racing. And race drivers are qualified to use them.
Should we ban civilians from driving them? No, but let them drive them for fun in a controlled environment, with qualified instructors watching over them. (there are some schools that let you do just that). At the end of the day, you can have your fun, but you dont "own" one of the cars, since the vast majority of civilians have no need for one.


Now, replace "NASCAR Stock Car" with "Fully automatic gun" and "race car drivers" with "soldiers/cops" and that pretty much somes up my view on fully auto guns.

And yes, im aware a car is not a Constitutional Right, this was an analogy.