Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drunks

 

Comments (24) RSS

Newest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Knat 24
@20: I said civilian. That excepts both cops and the military. Exactly what real-world scenario demands 100 rounds to defend your home? And in what definition of "effective" would you deem a weapon that requires firing 100 rounds at an intruder?

You also have the right to freedom of speech, too. That right does not extend to threatening someone's life, when it then becomes a crime. There are reasonable limits to our freedoms, in everything except guns.
Posted by Knat on January 14, 2013 at 12:23 AM · Report this
23
@19: Bullshit. Sheer bullshit.
Posted by BallardBoy on January 12, 2013 at 12:16 AM · Report this
22
The Branch Davidians. burned themselves. They burned their own children to death. How anyone could see the Branch Davidians as innocent victims is beyond me. They could have just surrendered.
Posted by BallardBoy on January 12, 2013 at 12:14 AM · Report this
21
These guys hating on Clinton have posted comments trying to defend guns and trash liberals almost everyday. To bad they trash the selves and sound like idiots every time. I am a combat veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I had to provide proficiency in my weapons and sound off the use for deadly force every time we left base. I am all for the ban on semi auto weapons. Your lame ass rifles and pistols will not stop tanks,drones,gunships and cruise missles. Why do you think they suicide bomb and plant ieds? How many people will die before we realize mental health is the key problem. Too bad republicans shit on everything dems try to pass through office.
Posted by happyAmerican on January 11, 2013 at 5:37 PM · Report this
20
@17: because the police, military, and armed guards of politicians have decided such magazines are what are sufficient and effective for their on the job and at-home defense. Why should any citizen be deprived of the same level of defense? Alternatively: it's not a bill of "needs", it's a bill of "rights", but that kind of thing doesn't seem to hold much sway with many of you.
Posted by Tawnos on January 11, 2013 at 5:32 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 19
@18

It is mainly because Bill Clinton's thoughts on gun control have lead to the deaths of many innocent people.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on January 11, 2013 at 3:49 PM · Report this
Jaymz 18
As I see it, this is a post about Bill Clinton's thoughts on gun issues, so in response to those who trash him above:

Dogs barking at the wind. You've focused on the messenger and not the message. If this was a video of Pat Robertson making the same comments, I'd say "wow, something that makes sense and where we actually agree". I guess as soon as Bill opens his mouth you guys just want to scream invectives and drown him out. Sad.
Posted by Jaymz on January 11, 2013 at 3:23 PM · Report this
Knat 17
So, no one can provide a reasonable explanation of why weapons like the ones Clinton described (which sloggers - thank you, arbeck - have confirmed civilians can acquire) should be in the hands of civilians, including our resident firearms enthusiasts? Okay then.
Posted by Knat on January 11, 2013 at 3:14 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 16
@15
I also fail TO SEE how molestation or cop killing justifies the extrajudicial killing of innocent people including children.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on January 11, 2013 at 2:29 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 15
@13
I don't recall child molestation (which was never proven) being the concern of the ATF (ALCOHOL TOBACCO and FIREARMS)

I also fail how molestation or cop killing justifies the extrajudicial killing of innocent people including children.

Funny that it seems the death of children only matters to the Seattle progressives when it can be used as an emotional push for gun control.

Posted by Cascadian Bacon on January 11, 2013 at 2:28 PM · Report this
14
Hear, hear @sgt doom and @Cascadian Bacon. Let me add a few more Clinton gems: The forerunner of the Patriot Act, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (1996); plus his priceless (verbal) boner after Columbine, asking that kids solve their disputes with "words, not weapons," while our air force was at that moment destroying civilian infrastructure in the Balkans. That's what the SS used to do, and also a Nuremberg-level war crime, if anyone cares.

So, does all the Clinton worship show that we've politically descended so much further, or that his cheerleaders are idiots? ('Yes' is the correct answer.) Bill Clinton is the liberal's version of Ronald Reagan; pining for those days is the sign of a second-rate mind.
Posted by Che Guava on January 11, 2013 at 1:58 PM · Report this
13
@10, child molesters and cop killers. There's nobody to blame for that but the Branch Davidians.

@4, I don't know of any reason other than a shooting hobby. I'd guess it's a convenience to spend your time loading a large capacity magazine one over stopping your shooting to reload a smaller one over and over again.
Posted by GermanSausage on January 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM · Report this
12
Actually this woman fired six shots and the attacker still was able to leave the crime scene. What if she had missed with her six bullets or had more than one attacker? Six rounds may have not been enough, leaving her and her children in a worse position then they were. http://youtu.be/dEpEoWLkKMc
Posted by hoodlum206 on January 11, 2013 at 12:22 PM · Report this
11
Actually this woman fired six shots and the attacker still was able to leave the crime scene. What if she had missed with her six bullets or had more than one attacker? Six rounds may have not been enough, leaving her and her children in a worse position then they were. http://youtu.be/dEpEoWLkKMc
Posted by hoodlum206 on January 11, 2013 at 12:19 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 10
@3
Right on Sgt Doom!

I also remember Bill Clinton's administration MURDERING 76 men, women, and children.

76 people BURNING TO DEATH for the sake of firearms confiscation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on January 11, 2013 at 12:19 PM · Report this
Former Lurker 9
Is Clinton done bombing Kosovo?
Posted by Former Lurker on January 11, 2013 at 12:11 PM · Report this
8
@4, to the best of my knowledge, there are no current firearms that come stock with a 100 round capacity, but there are many 100 round aftermarket magazines. And it isn't really building one out of parts, it is more like buying a computer that comes with a DVD burner and a piece of blank CDR (media) and going out and buying some blank DVD media.

However, 100rd magazines are pretty much only for fanboys and people who think it is "cool" or something (or maybe they just like looking like morons). In practice they're unreliable and extremely heavy. There are some timed handgun competitions where a high capacity (18 or so) does make a difference, but you're talking about 10th of a second between 1st and 2nd place.
Posted by randoma on January 11, 2013 at 12:07 PM · Report this
7
Sgt. Doom. True to your name. I wish we could bottle up all the hate and turn it into helium balloons to inhale and start all over. Lather, rinse, repeat. Tell me do you have your Clinton Negatives Statistic Cheat Sheet so handy you never leave home without it? You did in fact forget signing DADT into law. Just sayin' ...
Posted by Lazarus on January 11, 2013 at 12:05 PM · Report this
6
@Knat

Yes:

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/M…

Realistically the ban should be on any weapon with a detachable magazine. There's no need for a quick reload and fire weapon in any reasonable self defense or hunting situation.
Posted by arbeck http://www.facebook.com/arbeck on January 11, 2013 at 12:03 PM · Report this
5
Oddly enough, the Bushmaster XM-15 and others like it were just as available during the AWB as after because the AWB was purely cosmetic (You couldn't get an AR15 with a flash-hider or bayonet lug) and because existing high capacity magazines were grandfathered, high capacity magazines were widely available, albeit more expensive. In fact, sales of AR15's were higher during the ban than prior to the ban - the AWB was likely responsible for the popularity of the AR15. 10-15 years ago most shooting enthusiasts (gun-nuts to you) were dismissive of AR15's as unreliable "mouse guns".
Posted by randoma on January 11, 2013 at 11:58 AM · Report this
Knat 4
@1: Honest question for you: Outside of the shooting hobby, what are the reasons for having such a high capacity* in a private citizen's weapon?

*Can you actually buy a weapon with a 100-round capacity (not create using after-market parts or anything, actually purchase off the shelf), as a private citizen?
Posted by Knat on January 11, 2013 at 11:41 AM · Report this
3
BILL CLINTON ? ? ?

I remember Bill Clinton:

NAFTA

GATT

Telecommunications Act of 1996 to consolidate the media and allow AT&T to reconstitute themselves (officially, that is)

Ending the successful boycott of the tuna industry in order to save dolphins' lives.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act (Part I to enable econ. meltdown)

Commodity Futures Modernization Act (Part II to enable econ. meltdown)

The final Intelligence Authorization Act Billy signed, allowing for total exemption of US intel personnel from the US Constitution.

Yes, we should all remember Bill, especially what he did as governor of Arkansas to make that into a "right-to-work" state, killing collective bargaining there.

And then, after vacating the White House, Clinton quickly "earns" $100 million plus, lobbying on behalf of the jobs offshoring industry (admittedly, some of it was simply political payoff for his other stuff), lobbying for the successful passage of the Oman-America Free Trade Agreement, the Jordan-America Free Trade Agreement, etc.

(No, those FTAs did not provide employment for Jordanians or Omanians, they established factories in those countries, managed by royals or relatives of the ruling royal families there, and staffed the factories with the cheapest labor possible from Bangladesh, the Philippines, Vietnam, etc., exploiting the hell out of those workers.)
Posted by sgt_doom on January 11, 2013 at 11:23 AM · Report this
delirian 2
If I had to choose between banning assault rifles and extra large magazines vs. banning handguns, I'd ban the handgun. Why is nobody talking about this? Restricting access to the most concealable and most often used method of murder should be the priority. It is as if the vast, vast majority of gun deaths aren't due to handguns. This is ridiculous. I wouldn't mind banning assault weapons, but if the plan is to reinstate the assault weapons ban while leaving handguns untouched, then this method of gun control will fail. And when it does, then the gun rights folks are going to laugh in our faces and tell us how TWO bans didn't work.
Posted by delirian on January 11, 2013 at 11:23 AM · Report this
1
Ah, the "nobody needs" fallacy.
Posted by GermanSausage on January 11, 2013 at 11:01 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy